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 ROŠKOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 36818/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8
December 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 Rošková v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting 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
deliberated in private on 17 November 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 36818/06) 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 Eva Rošková
(“the applicant”), on 31 August 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr P. Jonáš, a lawyer
practising in Trebišov. The Slovakian Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs
M. Pirošíková.
- On
7 February 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 1959 and lives in Trebišov.
A. Proceedings
concerning the applicant's action for distribution of matrimonial
property
5. On 27 August 1991 the applicant filed an
action for distribution of matrimonial property with the Spišská
Nová Ves District Court.
- Following the Constitutional
Court's finding (see below) the District Court held seven hearings,
obtained further evidence and an expert opinion.
- On 29 November 2006 the District
Court delivered a judgment which became final on 30 January 2007.
B. Constitutional
proceedings
- On 13 January 2005 the
Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the
applicant's right under 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing
without unjustified delay. The overall length of the proceedings
(more than 14 years at a single instance) was clearly inappropriate.
The applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings
to a certain extent in that she had failed to appear at hearings on
six occasions.
- The Constitutional Court awarded
the equivalent of 1,810 euros (EUR) at that time to the
applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It
also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the
proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal 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 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 its finding had had a sufficient
compensatory and accelerating effect.
-
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.
- The Court observes that the period to be taken into
consideration began 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 more than
6 months. At the time of the Constitutional Court's finding the
relevant period had lasted 12 years and 10 months. The Constitutional
Court awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR 1,810 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), even having regard to the accelerating effect
of the court's ruling on the subsequent proceedings.
- 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 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
period under consideration started on 18 March 1992 and ended on 30
January 2007 when the District Court's judgment became final.
Thus it lasted 14 years and more than 10 months for one level of
jurisdiction.
- 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
Government agreed with the Constitutional Court's finding that undue
delays had occurred in the proceedings examined by it. As to the
subsequent period the Government stated that no undue delays
had occurred. Moreover, it was the conduct of the parties which had
contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings. As to the overall
length of the proceedings, the Government admitted that Article 6 §
1 of the Convention had been violated.
- The
applicant contested the argument that she had contributed to the
length of the proceedings subsequent to the Constitutional Court's
finding. She further argued that the District Court had failed to use
the means available for securing the defendant's presence at the
hearings.
- 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
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 relevant period had lasted 12 years and 10 months. Following the
Constitutional Court's finding the proceedings continued for
approximately 2 years at one level of jurisdiction. During
that period no substantial delay 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
- In
the application form the applicant claimed EUR 5,500 in compensation
for non-pecuniary damage. On 29 April 2008, after the application had
been communicated to the respondent Government and the parties had
been informed that the admissibility and merits of the case would be
examined at the same time, the Court invited the applicant to submit
her claims for just satisfaction before 10 June 2008.
- In
her reply of 9 June 2008 the applicant stated that, due to the delays
in the proceedings complained of, the enforcement of the amount
granted by the domestic court was no longer possible. Furthermore,
she argued that the sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage awarded by
the Constitutional Court was inadequate.
- The
Government objected that even if the applicant had suffered any
pecuniary damage as a result of the excessive length of the
proceedings, she could have sought redress by way of an action for
damages under the State Liability Act 1969 or,
after its entry into force on 1 July 2004, Act No. 514/2003
Coll. on Liability for Damage Caused in the Course of Exercise of
Public Authority.
- 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 qualifies the
applicant's reply as an implicit request for non-pecuniary
damage as she argued that the award made by the Constitutional Court
was insufficient. The Court accepts that
the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage which would not be
sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation. Making its
assessment on an equitable basis and having regard to the
circumstances of the case, the award made by the Constitutional Court
and the effect of that court's ruling on the conduct of the
subsequent proceedings, the Court awards the applicant EUR 5,000
under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant submitted no claim for costs and expenses.
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 amount of
EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros),
plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary
damage;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 8 December 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
