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 MAJERÍKOVÁ
v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 21057/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24
November 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 Majeríková v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza,
President,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša
Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 November 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 21057/06) 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, Ms Emília
Majeríková (“the applicant”), on 10 May
2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr R. Toman, a lawyer practising in
Bratislava. 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 1933 and lives in Teplička nad Váhom.
A. Proceedings
concerning the applicant's action for distribution of an estate
- On 14 May 1993 the applicant and eleven other persons
filed an action with the Zilina District Court for determination of
their shares in an estate. The action was dismissed on 24 October
1995.
- On 6 May 1996 and on 19 February 1997 the Banská
Bystrica Regional Court, without deciding on the merits, returned the
case to the District Court to rectify errors in its judgment. On 10
October 1997 the case file was again submitted to the Banská
Bystrica Regional Court. The latter quashed the first-instance
judgment and remitted the case to the District Court on 30 October
1997.
- In 2000 the Zilina Regional Court decided that the
District Court judge was biased and the case was assigned to a
different judge.
- Following the Constitutional Court's finding (see
below), the District Court and the Regional Court decided on several
occasions on the parties' requests for interim measure. The District
Court also requested additional information, collected further
evidence and invited the parties to the proceedings to specify their
claims. The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance
court.
B. Constitutional
proceedings
- On 6 October 2005 the Constitutional Court found that
the Zilina District Court had violated the applicant's right under
Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without
unjustified delay and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a
hearing within a reasonable time.
- The Constitutional Court held that the case was
complex from the factual but not from the legal point of view and
that the applicant's conduct had not contributed to the length of the
proceedings. The Constitutional Court noted that the District Court
by its erroneous conduct was responsible for a major part of the
duration of the proceedings before the Regional Court. Delays
imputable to the District Court totalled 74 months.
- The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK
80,000 (the equivalent of 2,062 euros at that time) as just
satisfaction in respect of non pecuniary damage and ordered the
Zilina District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings.
The applicant claimed reimbursement of his legal costs in the amount
of 941 euros. The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to
reimburse the applicant the equivalent of 479 euros for legal
representation.
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...”
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 her 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.
-
In any event, the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as it
had been open to her to lodge a fresh complaint with the
Constitutional Court in respect of the proceedings following the
Constitutional Court's finding.
- The
applicant disagreed, pointed to several delays in the proceedings and
argued that the amount of just satisfaction granted by the
Constitutional Court was disproportionately low in the circumstances
of the case and that the Constitutional Court's finding had not had a
preventive effect.
- The
applicant further argued that she was not
obliged to have recourse again to the constitutional remedy.
- The Court notes that at the time of the Constitutional
Court's finding the proceedings had been pending for 12 years and
more than 4 months at two levels of jurisdiction. The Constitutional
Court awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR 2,062 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-V, and
Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§
65-107, ECHR 2006-V).
- In
view of the above, in respect of the proceedings up to the time of
the Constitutional Court's finding, the Court concludes that the
applicant did not lose her status as a victim within the meaning of
Article 34 of the Convention.
- Since
the effects produced by the Constitutional Court's finding 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
finding (see, mutatis mutandis, Becová v. Slovakia
(dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007).
- The
proceedings started on 14 May 1993 and are still pending before the
first-instance court. They have already lasted 16 years and more than
4 months.
- The
Court notes that this part of 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 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, 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 finding
the proceedings had been pending for 12 years and more than 4 months.
Following the Constitutional Court's finding the proceedings
continued for approximately 4 years at two levels of jurisdiction and
further delays occurred.
- 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
applicant claimed 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government considered the claim for
non-pecuniary damage exaggerated. They left the matter to the Court's
discretion and requested the Court to take into account the just
satisfaction awarded by the Constitutional Court.
-
The Court, having regard to the amount of compensation already
awarded to the applicant at the national level, awards the applicant
EUR 5,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 462 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Constitutional Court which had not been reimbursed to her
and EUR 2,607 for those incurred before the Court. She further
claimed EUR 50 for administrative costs and postal fees.
- The
Government requested the Court to dismiss the claim for costs for
legal representation incurred before the Constitutional Court. The
Government considered the claim for costs incurred before the Court
exaggerated and had no objection to the award of the demonstrably
incurred sum for administrative costs and postal fees.
- 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 sum of EUR 1,500 under this
head.
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 5,300 (five thousand three
hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,500 (one thousand five 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 24 November 2009,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
