[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Jozef BIC v SLOVAKIA - 5423/03 [2008] ECHR 1104 (23 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1104.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1104

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 5423/03
by Jozef BIČ
against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 February 2003,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Jozef Bič, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Košice. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Zikla, a lawyer practising in Košice. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1.  Proceedings concerning the applicant's action of 1999

On 15 October 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Košice I District Court relating to his right to use an apartment.

On 30 November 1999 two of the defendants submitted their comments in relation to the claim.

The first hearing in the case was held on 29 November 2001. Two of the defendants failed to appear.

The President of the District Court informed the applicant that the delay in the proceedings had been caused by the heavy workload of the judge dealing with the case.

All three defendants failed to appear before the court on 25 January 2002. The court requested the police's co-operation in serving the summons on two of the defendants, one of whom lived in the Czech Republic.

On 3 March 2002 another hearing was held. None of the defendants appeared. The summons had been served on one of them.

On 16 April 2002 two of the defendants filed written submissions with the District Court.

On 22 April 2002 the District Court imposed a procedural fine on one of the defendants.

On 24 April 2002 the District Court asked for documentary evidence to be produced.

Hearings were held on 23 May 2002 and on 13 September 2002.

On 28 March 2003 the judge asked for further documentary evidence to be produced.

A hearing was held on 23 April 2003. On 9 June 2003 the court inspected the apartment in issue.

On 10 June 2003 the case was adjourned. The applicant was invited to specify his claim within two months.

On 28 January 2004 one of the defendants asked the court to grant him access to the apartment.

On 28 May 2004 and on 22 June 2004 the judge asked the applicant to inform the court whether an agreement had been reached between the parties. The applicant replied on 2 September 2004.

On 24 February 2005 a hearing was held. Subsequently, a hearing was adjourned twice because the judge dealing with the case was on sick leave.

On 29 June 2005 a hearing was held. Neither the applicant nor the defendants were present. It was not proved that the summons had been served on one of the defendants. The court imposed a procedural fine on the lawyer of the other two defendants. The lawyer was later exempted from payment of the fine.

On 4 August 2005 the court notified the parties that the case had been assigned to a new judge and the hearing was adjourned. On the same day the court requested police co-operation in establishing the address of one of the defendants.

On 5 September 2005 the police informed the court that the defendant was living abroad at an unknown address.

On 26 October 2005 a hearing was held at which the applicant and all three defendants were present. The hearing was adjourned as further information was needed.

The District Court delivered a judgment on 5 December 2005. It ordered one of the defendants to let the applicant use the apartment in issue within three days of the judgment becoming final.

On 16 May 2006 the Košice Regional Court upheld the relevant part of the first-instance judgment. The decision in the case became final on 23 June 2006.

2. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court

On 8 January 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice I District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. The decision stated that the case was not complex and that the applicant had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. The District Court had remained inactive from 30 November 1999 to 29 November 2001. The Constitutional Court considered it appropriate to award the applicant 20,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK)¹, payable by the District Court within two months. It also ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without any further delay.

On 10 March 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice I District Court had violated Article 6 § 1 in the proceedings concerning the applicant's action during the period subsequent to the delivery of the first decision on 8 January 2003.

The Constitutional Court found that the case was not complex. While the applicant had not always replied to the court's requests within the time-limit set, his behaviour as a whole had not resulted in any unjustified delays in the proceedings. As to the conduct of the District Court, it had remained inactive from 29 December 2003 to 28 May 2004 (5 months) as well as from 2 September 2004 to 4 January 2005 (4 months). Despite the earlier order issued by the Constitutional Court, the District Court had not proceeded with the determination of the action in good time.

The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 20,000 as just satisfaction, which the District Court was obliged to pay within two months. When determining the amount of just satisfaction, the Constitutional Court took into account, inter alia, that at a certain stage of the proceedings the applicant had not duly co-operated with the District Court. It further ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without any further delay and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs in the constitutional proceedings.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings concerning his action of 1999.

THE LAW

The applicant complained that the proceedings had lasted an excessively long time. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which provides:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Government argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim on the grounds that the Constitutional Court had twice acknowledged a violation of his right by the District Court, had ordered the District Court to proceed without further delay and had awarded just satisfaction to the applicant which, in total, had not been manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case. Finally, the proceedings ended thirteen months after the Constitutional Court had delivered its second judgment.

The applicant disagreed.

The Court reiterates that an applicant's status as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention depends, inter alia, on whether the redress afforded at domestic level on the basis of the facts complained of before the Court was adequate and sufficient having regard to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention. While there is no requirement under the existing case-law that the domestic authorities should award the same sum by way of compensation as the Court would be likely to award, the level of just satisfaction granted at domestic level must nevertheless not be manifestly inadequate in the particular circumstances of the case (see the principles established under the Court's case-law in Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 65-107, ECHR 2006-... or Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006 - ...).

In the present case the Constitutional Court twice found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the proceedings before the District Court and twice ordered the District Court to proceed without any further delay. The Constitutional Court examined the period of five years and almost five months during which the case was dealt with by the District Court, it acknowledged delays in the proceedings and awarded the applicant the equivalent of approximately 1,000 euros in total. Having regard to the period examined by the Constitutional Court, this amount of just satisfaction corresponds to 23 % of the award which the Court would make in respect of non-pecuniary damage, in accordance with its practice under Article 41 of the Convention. The District Court decided the case nine months after the Constitutional Court had delivered the second judgment. The proceedings ended with the Regional Court's decision five months later.

Having regard to the facts of the case and to the principles established in its case-law, the Court considers that the redress obtained by the applicant at the domestic level in respect of his complaint of the length of the proceedings was adequate and had both a compensatory and an accelerating effect (see, for example, Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004, and Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007, with further references).

The Court therefore concludes that the applicant can no longer claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention of the alleged violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President