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 PETRINCOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 11395/06)
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 Petrincová 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 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. 11395/06) 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 Paulína
Petrincová (“the applicant”), on 14 March 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by M. Sobota, a lawyer practising in
Nitrianske Rudno. The Slovak Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M.
Pirošíková.
- On
5 February 2009 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 1919 and lives in Prievidza.
A. Proceedings on
determination of heirs' shares
- On 10 February 1992 the applicant submitted an
inheritance-related claim to the State Notary in Bratislava. On 21
December 1992 the applicant was informed that the ordinary courts had
jurisdiction to deal with her claim.
- On 11 June 1993 the applicant filed an
inheritance-related claim with the Bratislava-vidiek District Court
(whose case load was later transferred to the Bratislava III District
Court).
- On 4 October 1993 the District Court stayed the
proceedings pending the outcome of related inheritance proceedings.
The related proceedings were concluded on 20 November 1996.
- On 19 June 2006 the Bratislava III District Court
delivered a judgment. On 22 August 2006 the applicant appealed.
- On 20 September 2007 the Bratislava Regional Court,
without deciding on the merits, returned the case to the District
Court to rectify errors in its judgment. On 31 October 2007 the case
file was again submitted to the Regional Court.
- On 20 November 2008 the Regional Court upheld the
first-instance judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on
16 December 2008.
B. Constitutional
proceedings
- On
3 November 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava
III District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing
within a reasonable time. The Constitutional Court awarded the
equivalent of 1,794 euros (EUR) to the applicant as just satisfaction
in respect of non pecuniary damage, ordered the District Court
to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the
applicant's legal costs.
12.
The Constitutional Court observed that the factual complexity of the
case did not justify the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
The applicant by her conduct had not contributed to the
prolongation of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court further
noted that during the period under consideration, which exceeded 12
years, the District Court had not proceeded with the case in an
effective manner, had held no more than two hearings and delays
imputable to the latter totalled more than 5 years.
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 part 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 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 and stated that the period under consideration
had started on 10 February 1992 when she had lodged her claim with
the State Notary. The applicant further argued that the
Constitutional Court's finding had not had a sufficient compensatory
and accelerating effect.
- The Court observes that the period to be taken into
consideration began on 11 June 1993 when the applicant lodged an
action with the District Court. At the time of the Constitutional
Court's finding the proceedings lasted 12 years and 5 months.
However, the Court observes that the proceedings were stayed pending
the outcome of related inheritance proceedings. The Constitutional
Court awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR 1,794 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 victim status 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 11 June 1993 and ended on 16 December 2008
when the Regional Court's judgment was served on the applicant. They
lasted 15 years and more than 6 months for two levels 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
applicant pointed to several periods of inactivity on the part of the
domestic courts. The applicant further argued that, in the period
following the Constitutional Court's finding, the District Court had
contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings as it had to
rectify errors in its judgment of 19 June 2006.
- The
Government agreed with the Constitutional Court's finding that undue
delays had occurred in the proceedings examined by it. However, they
reiterated that the applicant had been provided sufficient redress in
this respect.
- 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 proceedings had lasted 12 years
and 5 months. The Court observes that they were stayed on 4 October
1993 pending the outcome of related inheritance proceedings which had
been concluded on 20 November 1996. Following the Constitutional
Court's finding the proceedings continued for approximately 3 years
and more than 1 month for 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 EUR 31,036 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government considered the claim 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 4,000
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 2,655 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court.
- The
Government considered the claim exaggerated.
- 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 documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the applicant, who was represented
by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 1,300 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 4,000 (four thousand euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 1,300 (one thousand three 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 8 December 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
