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 LADOMÉRY v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 39783/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7
April 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 Ladoméry 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 17 March 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 39783/05) 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 Hungarian national, Mr Endre
Ladoméry (“the applicant”), on 29 October 2005.
- The
Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
- On
29 May 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
- The
applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Budapest.
1. The applicant's action of 1993
- On
24 May 1993 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava –
vidiek District Court. He claimed the estate of his predecessor.
- The
District Court held several hearings in 1993. On 10 December 1993
it issued an injunction which the court of appeal quashed on 31 May
1994.
- In
the second half of 1994 and in 1995 the District Court scheduled a
number of hearings. The parties or their representatives were unable
to attend several of them. The District Court took further evidence
during that period.
- There
was no progress in the case between 25 November 1996 and 28 October
1999. In 1997 the case fell to be examined by the Bratislava III
District Court to which the court business of the former Bratislava –
vidiek District Court had been transferred.
- On
18 April 2000 the applicant submitted further documents following a
request by the District Court which his representative had received
on 29 December 1999. In June and December 2001 the applicant
specified his action and submitted further documents as requested by
the District Court. On 8 February 2002 the District Court asked the
applicant to submit another original of the document in which he
provided further particulars of his claims.
- In
August 2002 the District Court asked the defendant to comment on the
claims. The defendant replied on 14 October 2002.
- On
13 April 2004 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 2 June 2004.
- As
the defendant's representative was unable to attend, the case was
adjourned until 27 September 2004. On that date the case was again
adjourned as the defendant was ill. A hearing was scheduled for
22 November 2004.
- Hearings
were held in 2006. On 13 November 2006 the District Court allowed the
applicant to modify his action.
- On
18 January 2007 the Bratislava III District Court delivered an
interim judgment confirming that the applicant was the heir of the
person whose estate he claimed.
- The
defendant appealed.
- On
1 April 2008 the Bratislava Regional Court changed the first-
instance decision in that it dismissed the applicant's action. It
held that the applicant's claim had lapsed.
2. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
- On
21 October 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava
III District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing
within a reasonable time. There was no indication that the case was
complex. The applicant by his conduct had not contributed to the
length of the proceedings which, however, had been prolonged for
reasons imputable to the defendant. The Constitutional Court noted,
in particular, that the defendant had repeatedly been ill and that
his representative had been unable to attend hearings several times
in 1995 and in 2004. The District Court had remained inactive between
20 May 1996 and 28 October 1999, between 18 April 2000 and 3 May 2001
and also from 14 October 2001 to 13 April 2004. Unjustified delays
thus exceeded 70 months.
- The
Constitutional Court awarded the equivalent of 1,500 euros (EUR) to
the applicant as just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. It
ordered the District Court to proceed with the case and to reimburse
the applicant's 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 and
that the decision to dismiss his action was arbitrary. He relied on
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in its relevant part
reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. Admissibility
1. As regards the length of the proceedings
- The
Government argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a
victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of
a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time
as regards the period that had already been examined by the
Constitutional Court. They pointed out that the Constitutional Court
had provided the applicant with preventive and compensatory redress.
The Government considered this redress adequate and sufficient.
- The
Government also argued that the applicant had failed to lodge a fresh
complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution about the length of
the proceedings after the Constitutional Court's judgment of
21 October 2004.
- The
applicant disagreed.
- The
Court observes that the applicant's status as a victim depends on
whether the redress afforded to him at the domestic level was
adequate and sufficient having regard to Article 41 of the
Convention. This issue falls to be determined in the light of the
principles established under the Court's case law (see, Scordino
v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-213,
ECHR 2006-... and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC],
no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-...).
- The
Court notes that the Constitutional Court awarded the applicant, on
21 October 2004, the equivalent of EUR 1,500 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage. This amount is disproportionately low, having
regard to what the Court generally awards in similar cases.
The
redress obtained by the applicant at the domestic level was thus
insufficient (see Scordino (no. 1), cited above, §§ 214-5).
The applicant can accordingly still claim to be a “victim”.
- In
view of the above conclusion, the Court finds that the applicant was
not required, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the
Convention, to resort to the remedy under Article 127 of the
Constitution anew (see Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no.
23788/06, 18 September 2007) as far as his complaint about the length
of the proceedings before the District Court is concerned.
- The
proceedings started on 24 May 1993 and ended on 1 April 2008. They
thus lasted 14 years, 10 months and 12 days for two levels of
jurisdiction. The Court must take into account that before the
Constitutional Court the applicant exclusively complained of the
proceedings at first instance (see, for example, Judt v. Slovakia,
no. 70985/01, § 61, 9 October 2007, with
further reference). The relevant part of the proceedings lasted 13
years and almost 8 months.
- The
Court notes that this complaint 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.
2. As regards the applicant's right to a fair hearing
- To
the extent that the applicant complained about the arbitrariness of
the Regional Court's decision, the Court finds that he could have
sought redress by way of an appeal on points of law to the Supreme
Court and, subsequently, he could have lodged a complaint under
Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court.
- It
follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35
§§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies.
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.
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 10,000 without further specification.
- The
Government contested the claim as far as pecuniary damage might be
concerned. As regards non-pecuniary damage they 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 considering that the
applicant obtained partial redress at domestic level, it awards him
EUR 5,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant submitted no claim 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 complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- 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, 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 7 April 2009, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
