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 ĎURECH AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 42561/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 July 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 Ďurech and Others 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 June 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 42561/04) 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 three Slovak nationals, Mr Július Ďurech, Mr Pavol
Ďurech and Ms Marta Máthéová (“the
applicants”) on 9 November 2004.
- The
Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
- On
16 February 2007 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
- Mr.
Július Ďurech and Mr Pavol Ďurech were born in 1933
and 1940 respectively and live in Prešov. Ms Marta Máthéová
was born in 1930 and lives in Košice. The applicants are
siblings.
- On
7 October 1987 the applicants requested a judicial determination of
their ownership title to a house.
- The
first-instance court delivered judgments on 18 November 1987, 25
October 1988, 5 June 1990, 4 July 1995 and 3 March 1997. The court of
appeal quashed those judgments on 26 May 1988, 22 December 1988,
28 February 1991, 5 March 1997 and 29 October 1999 respectively.
- On
28 January 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice
II District Court had violated the
applicants' right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a
hearing within a reasonable time.
- The
Constitutional Court had jurisdiction to examine the length of the
proceedings as from 15 February 1993, but it had regard to the stage
which the proceedings had reached by that date. The case was not
complex and the applicants by their conduct had not caused any delay.
The overall length of the proceedings was in itself incompatible with
the applicants' right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
- The
Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to proceed with the
case without further delay. It also awarded 100,000 Slovakian korunas
(the equivalent of 2,465 euros at that time) to each applicant as
just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The
Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to reimburse the
applicants' costs.
- On
1 February 2005 the District Court delivered a judgment. The Košice
Regional Court quashed that judgment on 14 November 2005 on the
ground that the District Court had failed to assess the relevant
evidence and to give sufficient reasons for the conclusion reached.
- On
28 November 2006 the District Court found against the applicants. The
judgment was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 30 April
2008. The decision was served on the applicants' lawyer on
2 July 2008.
- On
24 November 2008 the applicants asked the Prosecutor General to lodge
an extraordinary appeal on points of law against the above final
decision on their behalf. No further information has been made
available.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants 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...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government concurred with the Constitutional Court in that the length
of the proceedings in this case had been unreasonable but they
expressed the view that the applicants could no longer claim to be
victims of a violation of their 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 had not been manifestly inadequate in the
circumstances of the case. As to the period of the proceedings after
the Constitutional Court's judgment, the applicants should have
repeatedly sought redress by way of a fresh complaint under Article
127 of the Constitution.
- The
applicant disagreed.
- The Court observes that the period to be taken into
consideration began only on 18 March 1992, when the recognition by
the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, to which Slovakia is
one of the successor States, of the right of individual petition took
effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that
elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the fact that,
already at that time, the proceedings had been pending for four years
and almost six months. The period under consideration ended on 2 July
2008 when the Regional Court's decision was served on the applicants'
lawyer. It follows that, since the date of the entry into force of
the Convention in respect of Slovakia, the proceedings lasted more
than sixteen years for two levels of jurisdiction.
- The
Court further notes that the Constitutional Court awarded each of the
applicants the equivalent of EUR 2,465 as just satisfaction in
respect of non-pecuniary damage. As regards the relevant period of
the proceedings examined by the Constitutional Court, as well as the
state of the proceedings at the time when the Convention entered into
force in respect of the respondent State, this amount cannot be
considered to have provided adequate and sufficient redress to the
applicants 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, it concludes that
the applicants did not lose their status as victims within the
meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see, for example, Bič
v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, § 37, 4 November 2008).
- Accordingly,
the applicants were not required, for the purposes of Article 35 §
1 of the Convention, to again resort to the complaint 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).
- 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants 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 regard to its case-law on the subject, the
Court concurs with the Constitutional Court that the length of the
proceedings up to the date of the Constitutional Court's judgment was
excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time”
requirement. It observes that the proceedings ended four years and
five months after the Constitutional Court's judgment and finds
further delays in that period of the proceedings.
- 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 length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the
“reasonable time” requirement.
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
applicants jointly claimed 40,497 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary
damage. They stated that due to the overall length of the proceedings
of more than twenty years they suffered non-pecuniary damage the
amount of which they considered difficult to calculate.
- The
Government contested the claim as to the pecuniary damage. They
further stated that the applicants had not specified the amount of
non-pecuniary damage but they left the matter to the Court's
discretion, pointing out that the applicants had obtained adequate
compensation from the Constitutional Court.
- 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, it considers that the applicants must have
sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, having
regard to its case-law on the subject and to the fact that the
applicants obtained partial redress at the domestic level, it awards
each of the applicants EUR 5,600.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants jointly claimed EUR 849 for the legal costs incurred in
the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. This sum
approximately amounted to the difference between the sum agreed
between the applicants and their lawyer pursuant to the contract
submitted to the Court and the sum reimbursed by the Constitutional
Court. The applicants also claimed EUR 159 for unspecified travel
expenses and EUR 20 in respect of their other out-of-pocket expenses
(postal and telephone costs).
- The
Government, stating that the applicants failed to support their
claims by necessary invoices, left the matter to the Court's
discretion.
- The
Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants, who were not
represented by a lawyer in the proceedings before the Court, jointly
the amount of EUR 300.
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 applicants, 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 5,600 (five thousand six hundred euros) each, plus any tax that
may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 300 (three hundred euros) jointly, plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicants, 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 applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 July 2009, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
