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 SIKA v. SLOVAKIA (no. 5)
(Application
no. 284/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2
June 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 Sika v. Slovakia (no. 5),
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
Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 May 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 284/06) 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 Slovakian national, Mr Vladimír
Sika (“the applicant”), on 15 December 2005.
- The
Slovakian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
- On
26 May 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 1937 and lives in Trnava.
A. Proceedings
concerning the applicant's action
- On
24 October 2000 the applicant filed an action with the Trenčín
District Court. He claimed compensation for damage from an insurance
company.
- On
30 November 2001 the Trenčín District Court dismissed the
action. On 22 March 2002, upon an appeal by the applicant, the case
file was transferred to the Trenčín Regional Court. On 24
October 2002 the Trenčín Regional Court quashed the
decision. It remitted the case to the District Court on 15 November
2002.
- On 14 January 2004 the District Court judge fixed the
next hearing for February 2004. On 4 February 2004 the applicant
requested additional evidence to be taken and five witnesses to be
heard.
- In April 2004 and February and March 2005 the District
Court held three hearings and ordered an expert opinion.
- On 10 May 2005 the appointed expert asked the District
Court for additional documents which he considered necessary for the
elaboration of an expert opinion. On 15 November 2005 the
District Court informed him that it did not have the requested
documents.
- In June 2006 the District Court held a hearing and
delivered its judgment on 4 July 2006.
- On 9 November 2006 the Trenčín Regional
Court, on appeal by the applicant, partly upheld and partly quashed
the first-instance judgment.
- In March 2007 the District Court held a hearing. It
dismissed the applicant's claim at a hearing held on 3 April 2007.
- On 9 August 2007 the Trenčín Regional
Court, on appeal by the applicant, upheld the first-instance judgment
(the Regional Court's judgment became final on 15 August 2007).
B. Constitutional
proceedings
- On
27 January 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Trenčín
District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 §
2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and his
right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within
a reasonable time.
- The applicant had complained exclusively about the
proceedings before the Trenčín District Court. The
Constitutional Court had regard to the fact that the time taken by
the Regional Court to decide the appeal (8 months) had prolonged
the proceedings.
- The
Constitutional Court held that the case was to some extent complex
from the factual but not the legal point of view. However, the
factual complexity of the case could not justify the length of the
proceedings. The applicant's conduct had not contributed to their
length. Delays imputable to the Trenčín District Court
had exceeded 13 months.
- The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant 10,000
Slovakian korunas (SKK) – the equivalent of 259 euros at that
time – as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
It ordered the Trenčín District Court to avoid any
further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's
legal costs (176 euros).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The applicant complained that
his right to a fair hearing had been violated in the above
proceedings and that the length of the proceedings had been
excessive. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which
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
(a) Alleged
unfairness of the proceedings
- The applicant did not complain
of unfairness to 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) Length of the
proceedings
- The
Government did not contest the argument in respect of the
unreasonable length of the proceedings but argued that the
application was inadmissible for the reasons set out below.
- 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 his 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 was not manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the
case. They further argued that the Constitutional Court's finding had
a preventive effect as no further delays had occurred in the
subsequent period. In any event, the applicant had not exhausted
domestic remedies as it had been open to him to lodge (i) a fresh
complaint with the Constitutional Court in respect of the proceedings
before the District Court and (ii) a constitutional complaint in
respect of the proceedings before the Regional Court.
- The
applicant disagreed and argued that the amount of just satisfaction
granted by the Constitutional Court was disproportionately low in the
circumstances of the case. He further argued that he was not obliged
to have recourse again to the constitutional remedy.
- The Court notes that at the time of the Constitutional
Court's judgment the proceedings had been pending for 3 years and
more than 7 months before the District Court. The Constitutional
Court awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR 259 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-..., and
Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§
65-107, ECHR 2006-...).
- In
view of the above, in respect of the proceedings before the District
Court up to the time of the Constitutional Court's judgment, the
Court concludes that the applicant did not lose his status as a
victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
- Since
the effect produced by the decision of the Constitutional Court 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 before the District Court 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
proceedings started on 24 October 2000 and ended on 15 August
2007 when the Regional Court's judgment became final. They thus
lasted 6 years and more than 9 months at two levels of jurisdiction.
- The Court must however take into consideration the
fact that the applicant's constitutional complaint was only directed
at the proceedings before the first-instance court. The Court notes
that the overall proceedings before the first-instance court lasted 5
years and more than 8 months. These facts have to be taken into
account when determining the merits of the application and, if
appropriate, the applicant's claims for just satisfaction under
Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example,
Solárová and Others v.
Slovakia, no. 77690/01, § 42,
5 December 2006 and Judt v. Slovakia,
no. 70985/01, § 61, 9 October 2007, with a
further reference).
- 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, ibid.).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its
case-law on the subject, 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 judgment the proceedings had
been pending for 3 years and more than 7 months before the
District Court. Since the Constitutional Court's judgment the
proceedings continued before the District Court for 2 years and more
than 1 month. During that period one substantial delay of
approximately 6 months occurred (between May and November 2005) owing
to the District Court's lack of diligence.
- The
Court concludes that the overall length of the period under
consideration was incompatible with the applicant's right to a
hearing within a reasonable time.
- There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14
OF THE CONVENTION
- Relying on Article 14 of the
Convention, the applicant complained that he had been discriminated
against as the amount of just satisfaction he had obtained was
disproportionately low in comparison with the legal costs reimbursed
to his representative.
- However, in the light of all the
material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained
of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not
disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set
out in the Convention or its Protocols.
- It follows that this part of the
application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. 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 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claim in respect of pecuniary damage due to
the lack of a causal link between the claimed pecuniary damage and
the alleged violation. As to non-pecuniary damage the Government
considered the claim exaggerated and left the matter to the Court's
discretion.
- 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 awards the applicant, who obtained partial redress
at domestic level, EUR 1,760 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed a lump sum, without specifying the amount, for
the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and for
those incurred before the Court.
- The
Government had no objection to the award of a sum which had been
incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the alleged
violation.
- 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 100 for the
applicant's out-of-pocket expenses incurred in 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 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;
3. 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 1,760 (one thousand seven hundred and sixty euros), plus any tax
that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 100 (one 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 2 June 2009, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
