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 NOVÁK v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 1494/05)
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 Novák 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 12 May 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 1494/05) 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 Slovak national, Mr Vladimír
Novák (“the applicant”), on 16 December 2004.
- The
Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mrs Marica 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 1967 and lives in Spišské
Podhradie. The applicant introduced his application through
the intermediary of an advocate, Mrs Elena Smiková.
Subsequently, the applicant corresponded with the Registry himself.
A. Proceedings concerning
termination of the applicant's employment
- On 4 February 1994 the applicant filed an action with
the Spišská Nová Ves District Court. He
challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal from his employment.
- On 22 December 2005 the district court dismissed the
action. The Košice Regional Court upheld the first-instance
judgment on 29 January 2007 (final on 14 March 2007).
B. Constitutional proceedings
- On 23 August 2005 the Constitutional Court found that
the 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 not
complex and that the applicant's conduct had contributed to the
length of the proceedings. Delays imputable to the district court
totalled 10 years and 8 months.
- The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant
SKK 90,000 (the equivalent of 2,328 euros at that time) as just
satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the
Spišská Nová Ves District Court to reimburse the
applicant's legal costs and avoid any further delay in the
proceedings.
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...”
- The
Government did not contest that argument but argued that the
application was inadmissible for the reasons set out below.
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 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 and paid without undue delay 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 proceedings before the District Court and (ii) a
constitutional complaint in respect of 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 and contested the accelerating effect of
the Constitutional Court's finding.
- The Court notes that at the time of the Constitutional
Court's judgment the proceedings had been pending for more than 11
years and 6 months before the District Court. The Constitutional
Court awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR 2,328 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 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 compensatory 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 4 February 1994 and ended on 14 March 2007
when the Regional Court's judgment became final. They thus lasted
more than 13 years and 1 month 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
more than 12 years. 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 further reference).
- 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.
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 reiterates that special
diligence is necessary in employment disputes (Ruotolo v. Italy,
judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D, p. 39,
§ 17).
- 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 and having regard to its
case-law on the subject and the nature of the dispute, 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 more than 11
years and 6 months before a single instance. Following the
Constitutional Court's judgment the proceedings were pending for
another 6 months before the District Court, but no substantial delay
occurred during that period.
- 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 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained that he had no effective remedy at his
disposal in respect of his complaint of the excessive length of
proceedings. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention which
provides:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
- The
Government argued that the applicant had an effective remedy at his
disposal in respect of the above complaint.
- The
Court reiterates that the word “remedy” within the
meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to
succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority
competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, e.g.,
Šidlová v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99,
§ 77, 26 September 2006). In the light of this
principle the Court finds that the fact that the redress obtained by
the applicant from the Constitutional Court was not sufficient for
Convention purposes does not render the remedy under Article 127 of
the Constitution in the circumstances of the present case
incompatible with Article 13 of the Convention (see also Solárová
and Others v. Slovakia, no. 77690/01, § 56,
5 December 2006, with further reference).
- 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
- In
the application form the applicant claimed EUR 25,000 in
compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 19 September 2008, after
the application had been communicated to the respondent Government
and the parties informed that the admissibility and merits of the
case would be examined at the same time, the Court invited the
applicant to submit his claims for just satisfaction before
30 October 2008.
- Without
claiming any specific amount within the time-limit set for that
purpose, the applicant argued that he had suffered
non-pecuniary damage and therefore maintained his application.
- The Government objected that the applicant had failed
to submit his claims for just satisfaction in accordance with Rule 60
of the Rules of the Courts and pointed to the Court's case-law
(Bzdúšek v. Slovakia, no. 48817/99,
§ 31-32, 21 June 2005, Ryabykh v. Russia,
no. 52854/99, §§ 66-68, 24 July 2003).
- Even
in the absence of quantification, the Court accepts that the
applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage which would not have been
sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation. Making its
assessment on an equitable basis and having regard to the
circumstances of the case and the award made by the Constitutional
Court, the Court awards the applicant EUR 4,270 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant claimed EUR 210 for the costs and expenses incurred before
the Constitutional Court and EUR 774 for unspecified legal services.
- The
Government contested the costs incurred before the Constitutional
Court as those had been reimbursed to the applicant by the
Constitutional Court's finding of 23 August 2005. The Government
argued that the applicant failed to itemise the remainder of his
costs, but nevertheless accepted that certain costs must have been
incurred in order to put right the violation of the Convention.
- 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
rejects the costs claimed for the proceedings before the
Constitutional Court noting that these have already been reimbursed
to the applicant. The Court considers it
reasonable to award the sum of EUR 500 for the applicant's 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;
- 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 4,270 (four thousand two hundred and seventy euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 500 (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 2 June 2009, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
