[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF MARTIKÁN v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 30036/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20
January 2009
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 Martikán v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić,
judges,
and Lawrence Early,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 16 December 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 30036/06) 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 Ján
Martikán (“the applicant”), on 14 July 2006.
- The
Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
- On
3 April 2008 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1974 and lives in SneZnica.
A. Proceedings
concerning the applicant's action
- On 13 March 1998 the applicant filed an action with the
Čadca District Court. He claimed compensation in a labour
dispute. On 11 September 1998 the case was transferred to the
PovaZská Bystrica District Court.
- In the period following the Constitutional Court's
judgment of 14 February 2006 (see below) the PovaZská Bystrica
District Court held three hearings. It also requested the Čadca
District Court to hear witnesses and twice urged it to do so.
- On 15 March 2007 the PovaZská Bystrica District
Court granted the applicant's claim. The judgment became final on 12
May 2007.
B. Constitutional
proceedings
- On 14 February 2006 the Constitutional Court found that
the PovaZská Bystrica District Court had violated the
applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a
hearing without unjustified delay and his right under Article 6 §
1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.
- The Constitutional Court held that the case was not
complex. Although the applicant had to a certain extent contributed
to the length of the proceedings through insufficient cooperation,
that had not influenced the overall length of the proceedings. Delays
imputable to the PovaZská Bystrica District Court had amounted
to a total of 4 years.
- The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK
40,000 (the equivalent of 1,066 euros at that time) as just
satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the
reimbursement of the applicant's legal costs and ordered the PovaZská
Bystrica District Court to avoid any further delay in the
proceedings.
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 reads as follows:
“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 below.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government objected that, in respect of the proceedings examined by
the Constitutional Court, the applicant could no longer claim to be a
victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable
time. They argued that the Constitutional Court had expressly
acknowledged such a violation and the amount of just satisfaction
awarded and paid without undue delay was not manifestly inadequate in
the circumstances of the case. They further argued that the
Constitutional Court's finding had a preventive effect as no further
delays had occurred in the subsequent period. In any event, the
applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as it had been open to
him to lodge a fresh complaint with the Constitutional Court in that
respect.
- The
applicant disagreed and argued that the amount of just satisfaction
granted by the Constitutional Court was disproportionately low in the
circumstances of the case. He further argued that he was not obliged
to have recourse again to the constitutional remedy.
- The
Court notes that at the time of the Constitutional Court's judgment
the proceedings had been pending for 7 years, 11 months and 5 days.
The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR
1,066 as just satisfaction in respect of the proceedings examined by
it and ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the
proceedings.
- The
amount awarded by the Constitutional Court cannot be considered as
providing adequate and sufficient redress to the applicant in view of
the Court's established case-law (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1)
[GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006-..., and
Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§
65-107, ECHR 2006-...).
- In
view of the above, in respect of the proceedings up to the
Constitutional Court's judgment, the Court concludes that the
applicant did not lose his status as a victim within the meaning of
Article 34 of the Convention.
- Since
the compensatory effect produced by the decision of the
Constitutional Court did not satisfy the criteria applied by the
Court, the applicant was not required, for the purposes of Article 35
§ 1 of the Convention, to use again the remedy under Article 127
of the Constitution in respect of the proceedings subsequent to the
Constitutional Court's judgment (see the recapitulation of the
relevant principles in Becová v. Slovakia (dec.),
no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007).
- In
this context the Court also considers it relevant that the present
application was introduced without substantial delay after the
Constitutional Court's judgment (see Španír v.
Slovakia, no. 39139/05, § 47, 18 December 2007, and
Weiss v. Slovakia, no. 28652/03, § 33, 18 December 2007).
The application, accordingly, cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 13 March 1998 and
ended on 15 March 2007. The proceedings have thus lasted for more
than 9 years and 2 months for one level of jurisdiction.
- The
Court notes that the application 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 reiterates that special diligence is
necessary in employment disputes (Ruotolo v. Italy, judgment
of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D, p. 39, § 17).
- 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, ibid.).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its
case-law on the subject and the nature of the dispute, the Court
considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or
argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in
the present case. In particular, at the time of the Constitutional
Court's judgment the proceedings had been pending for almost 8 years
before a single instance. Following the Constitutional Court's
judgment the proceedings continued for 1 year and almost 3 months but
no substantial delay occurred during that period.
- The
Court concludes that the overall length of the period under
consideration was incompatible with the applicant's right to a
hearing within a reasonable time.
- There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. 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 2,900 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government considered the claim exaggerated and left the matter to
the Court's discretion.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, and having regard to its
case-law on the subject, the particular circumstances of the case and
the fact that the applicant obtained partial redress in the
proceedings before the Constitutional Court,
it awards EUR 2,700.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 119 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court.
- The
Government had no objection to the award of a demonstrably incurred
sum for translation costs and requested the Court to dismiss the
remainder as the applicant failed to support his claim by any
evidence.
- 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
considers it reasonable to award the applicant, who was not
represented by a lawyer, the sum claimed in full, i.e. EUR 119 for
the proceedings before the Court.
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 application admissible;
- 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:
(i) EUR 2,700 (two thousand seven hundred euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 119 (one hundred and nineteen 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 January 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
