BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF RAPOŠ v.
SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 25763/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20
May 2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Rapoš v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni
Bonello,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku, judges,
and
Lawrence Early,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 29 April 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 25763/02) against the
Slovak Republic lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Slovak national, Mr Ivan Rapoš
(“the applicant”), on 26 June 2002.
- The
Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
- On
29 January 2006 the
President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice
of the application to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of
the Convention, it was decided to rule on the admissibility and
merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Bratislava.
A. Proceedings in the applicant's action of 1996
- On
15 March 1996 the applicant sued a limited company before
the Bratislava II District Court. He claimed royalties for a
furniture line which he had designed.
- On
12 February 1997 the District Court granted the applicant's request
that a second company should be joined to the proceedings as a
defendant. On 23 May 1997 the Regional Court in Bratislava upheld
that decision.
- As
the first defendant was declared insolvent, the applicant withdrew
his claim against it on 2 June 1998. That company was subsequently
deleted from the companies register.
- On
18 September 1998 the Bratislava II District Court decided to
transfer the case to the District Court in Zilina.
On 30 November 1998 the Supreme Court decided that the case
fell within the jurisdiction of the Bratislava II District Court.
- Between
22 April 1999 and 2 October 2001 the District Court scheduled eleven
hearings. The defendant's representative failed to appear on seven
occasions.
- On
2 October 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant's
claim. On 12 December 2001 the applicant appealed.
- On
16 October 2003 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the
first-instance judgment. The court of appeal held that the applicant
was entitled to remuneration for the design in question. Further
evidence was to be taken with a view to determining the amount.
- Between
5 March 2004 and 15 April 2004 the file was examined by the
Constitutional Court.
- On
26 April 2004 the case was assigned to a different judge of the
District Court.
- On
16 July 2004, the District Court appointed an expert. As the expert
stated that he was not competent in the area concerned, a different
expert was appointed on 27 August 2004. On account of the latter's
health problems, a third expert was appointed on 22 November 2004.
The third expert informed the District Court that he was not
qualified to determine remuneration for artistic design, and for this
reason a fourth expert was appointed on 22 April 2005. That expert
informed the court that she was not authorised to prepare an opinion
on the point in issue. On 7 November 2005 the Bratislava II
District Court appointed a fifth expert with a view to having
determined the remuneration due to the applicant. On 7 December 2005
that expert replied that he was not entitled to give an opinion on
the point in issue. On 9 January 2005 the court asked the second
expert, who had earlier stated that he was suffering from health
problems, whether he could submit an opinion. He replied in the
negative.
- On
10 July 2006 the judge made a note in the file indicating that it had
been impossible to find an expert in intellectual property who was
qualified to determine royalties for the design of office furniture.
- On
19 July 2006 the District Court asked five companies for information
on royalties paid to furniture designers. It repeated the request on
26 September 2006.
- In
November and December 2006 the court sent a similar request to the
Slovak Chamber of Architects, the School of Creative Arts, the Slovak
Design Centre and the Slovak Fund of Creative Arts. In March 2007 and
April 2007 the court urged the School of Creative Arts to submit the
information.
- On
14 June 2007 the District Court held a hearing. The applicant was
asked to submit documentary evidence concerning the use by the
defendant of the furniture line designed by him. The applicant
submitted the evidence on 20 June 2007.
- On
22 October 2007 the District Court appointed an expert in household
equipment and furniture and asked him to submit an opinion within
forty days. That expert has been registered in the list of experts,
translators and interpreters of the Ministry of Justice since 1988.
He submitted the opinion on 3 January 2008. On 28 January 2008 the
District Court decided on the expert's fees.
- The
proceedings are pending.
B. Constitutional proceedings
- On
6 March 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court
that the Bratislava II District Court and the Bratislava Regional
Court had violated his right under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.
- On
3 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court
had violated the applicant's right in issue. The case was of a
certain complexity in that expert evidence was required. The
applicant had not contributed by his conduct to the length of the
proceedings. The defendant had failed to appear at seven hearings,
which had resulted in the proceedings being prolonged. The District
Court had not proceeded with the case in a smooth and efficient
manner, as a result of which the applicant's claim had not yet been
determined.
- The
Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to proceed with the
case without further delay and awarded the applicant 20,000 Slovak
korunas (the equivalent of 500 euros at that time) in just
satisfaction. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the
applicant's costs.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid
down in 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 did not contest that argument but argued that the
application was inadmissible for the reasons set out in paragraph 27
below.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 15 March 1996 and has
not yet ended. It has thus lasted more than 12 years. During this
period the merits of the case were dealt with by courts at two levels
of jurisdiction. In addition, the question as to which first-instance
court had jurisdiction to deal with the case was examined by the
Supreme Court.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government objected that, in view of the Constitutional Court's
judgment of 3 June 2004, the applicant could no longer claim to be a
victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable
time in respect of the period covered by that judgment. As to the
subsequent period, the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies
as required by Article 35 § 1, as he had not sought redress
by means of a fresh complaint to the Constitutional Court.
- The
applicant argued that the satisfaction awarded to him by the
Constitutional Court was inadequate and that the District Court had
failed to proceed with the case speedily after the delivery of the
Constitutional Court's decision.
- The
Court notes that when the Constitutional Court's judgment was given
the proceedings had already been pending for 8 years and more than 2
months. The just satisfaction awarded by the Constitutional Court
corresponds to approximately 9% of the Court's likely award under
Article 41 of the Convention in respect of the period from the
introduction of the proceedings until the Constitutional Court's
judgment, due account being taken of the particular circumstances of
the case. It cannot therefore be regarded as adequate in the
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 - ...). Furthermore, the
applicant's action has been before the Bratislava II District Court
for a further period of more than 3 years and 9 months since the
Constitutional Court's order, without the merits of the case having
been determined.
30. In
the above circumstances, the Constitutional Court's judgment of
3 June 2004 failed to produce effects which would have permitted
the Court to conclude that the applicant had lost his status as a
victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
Accordingly, the applicant was not required to seek repeatedly
redress before the Constitutional Court as suggested by the
Government (for a recapitulation of the relevant case-law, see, for
example, Španír v. Slovakia,
no. 39139/05, §§ 46-47, 18 December 2007, with
further references).
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its
case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case
the overall length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to
meet the “reasonable time” requirement. In particular,
the Court concurs with the conclusions reached by the Constitutional
Court on 3 June 2004. It further takes the view that the difficulties
which the Bratislava II District Court experienced in finding an
expert cannot in themselves justify the duration of the subsequent
period of more than 3 years and 9 months.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that he had no effective remedy at his disposal
as regards his complaint under Article 6 § 1. He relied on
Article 13 of the Convention which provides as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
- The
Government contended that a separate examination of this complaint
was not called for.
- The
Court reiterates that the word “remedy” within the
meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to
succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority
competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, e.g.,
Šidlová v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99,
§ 77, 26 September 2006). In the light of this
principle the Court finds that the fact that the redress obtained by
the applicant from the Constitutional Court was not sufficient for
Convention purposes does not render the remedy under Article 127 of
the Constitution in the circumstances of the present case
incompatible with Article 13 of the Convention (see also Solárová
and Others v. Slovakia, no. 77690/01, § 56, 5
December 2006, with further reference).
- It
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and
4 of the Convention.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
- The
applicant complained that, as a result of the ordinary courts'
failure to decide on his action, he had been unable to use his
property, namely the royalties due from the defendant, default
interest and the expenses which he had been obliged to incur in the
context of the proceedings concerning his action. He relied on
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provides:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
- The
Court observes that the applicant in his action claimed remuneration
for the design of a furniture line. As his claim has not yet been
determined by a final decision, the applicant has been in the
position of a claimant. The Court has held that similar claims did
not amount to “possessions” attracting the guarantees of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutanids, Kopecký
v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 58-60, ECHR
2004 IX...).
It
follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae
with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article
35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article
35 § 4.
- The
applicant also complained that, on account of the length of the
domestic proceedings, he cannot use the sums which he was obliged to
incur in the context of those proceedings. However, in the light of
all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters
complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do
not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms
set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and
4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage
and EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, the Court considers that the applicant must have
sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis and
noting that the applicant obtained partial redress in the proceedings
before the Constitutional Court, it awards him EUR 4,000 under that
head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 3,000 for the costs and expenses incurred
both at domestic level and in the proceedings before the Court.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings.
As to the Convention proceedings, the Court considers it reasonable
to award the applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer, the sum
of EUR 200.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts, to be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
4,000 (four thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
200 (two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the
applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three
months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European
Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 May 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
