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 SZIGETIOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 40047/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5
October 2010
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 Szigetiová 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 14 September 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 40047/06) 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, Mrs Monika Szigetiová (“the
applicant”), on 28 September 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr R. Belanský, a lawyer
practising in Košice. The Slovak Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs
M. Pirošíková.
- On
11 May 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 § 1).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Košice.
- On 4 September 2002 the applicant sought an increase of
the maintenance payments from her ex-husband before the Košice
I District Court. On 21 July 2005 she complained to the President of
the Košice I District Court about undue delays in the
proceedings.
- On 1 August 2005 she was informed that her complaint
had been transmitted to the Košice II District Court where the
case file had been transferred by a decision of 5 February 2003.
- On 5 September 2005 the President of the Košice
II District Court informed the applicant that her complaint would be
dealt with after an expert had returned the case file.
- On 16 September 2005 the President of the Košice
II District Court informed the applicant that the case file
concerning the maintenance dispute had been erroneously attached to
the file in separate proceedings concerning her ex-husband's contact
with their son. The latter proceedings had also been initiated before
the Košice I District Court and the case file had been
transferred to the Košice II District Court, for reasons of
local jurisdiction, by a decision of 2 October 2002. The
President of the Košice II District Court noted that the
maintenance dispute had not been duly transferred to his court and
instructed the judge dealing with the case “to take immediate
measures”.
- In view of the statements of the Presidents of the
Košice I and II District Court, on 2 November 2005 the
applicant complained of undue delays before the Constitutional Court.
The applicant directed her constitutional complaint against the
Košice II District Court where, according to the information
from the President of the Košice I District Court, the case
file had been transferred in 2003. The applicant did not indicate the
file number under which the proceedings had been pending before the
Košice II District Court as no number had been assigned to the
case at that time.
- On 10 November 2005 the Constitutional Court invited
the applicant to indicate the file number of the proceedings before
the Košice II District Court. On 11 January 2006 the
applicant's representative obtained the requested information and
forwarded it by telephone to the Constitutional Court.
- On 18 January 2006 the Constitutional Court declared
the applicant's complaint concerning delays in the proceedings before
the Košice II District Court admissible.
- On 17 February 2006 the President of the Košice
II District Court informed the Constitutional Court in writing that
the case file concerning the proceedings complained of had been
returned (as erroneously attached to another file) to the Košice
I District Court on 22 November 2005. The letter further stated
that on 30 November 2005 the Košice I District Court had
formally re-transferred the case file to the Košice II
District Court.
13. At the same time, the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to
amend her constitutional complaint as formally directed also against
the Košice I District Court.
- On 15 March 2006 the Constitutional Court found that
the applicant's right to a hearing without undue delays had not been
violated by the Košice II District Court. The Constitutional
Court stated that it was bound by the formulation of the complaint
and by its decision on admissibility and could examine the length of
proceedings complaint only in respect of the proceedings before the
Košice II District Court where the case file had been duly
transferred on 30 November 2005. Although the conduct of the Košice
I District Court fell outside the scope of the complaint examined by
the Constitutional Court, the latter noted that the maintenance
proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time and that undue delay
had occurred before the Košice I District
Court.
- On 5 May 2006 the Košice II District Court
delivered a judgment which became final on 1 June 2006.
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
period to be taken into consideration began on 4 September 2002 and
ended on 1 June 2006 when the Košice II District Court's
judgment became final. It thus lasted 3 years and 9 months for one
level of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government argued, as far as the proceedings before the Košice I
District Court were concerned, that the applicant had not exhausted
domestic remedies as she had failed to lodge her constitutional
complaint in accordance with the applicable procedural requirements
and established practice, i.e. to formulate her complaint in a
way which would allow the Constitutional Court to examine the length
of this part of the proceedings. They stated that the Constitutional
Court was bound by the phrasing of the complaint and by its decision
on admissibility of 18 January 2006. The Government considered the
complaint concerning the proceedings before the Košice II
District Court as manifestly-ill founded and pointed to the
Constitutional Court's finding.
- The
applicant pointed to the letters of the Presidents of the Košice
I and Košice II District Court of 1 August and 5 September
2005 informing her that the proceedings had been pending before the
Košice II District Court. She stated that it was only after
she had lodged her complaint about undue delay in the proceedings
that the district courts concerned realised that the case file had
been erroneously attached to another file and that it was only after
she had initiated the constitutional proceedings that the district
courts had taken the necessary measures for rectification of this
error. The applicant maintained that she had complained about delays
in the proceedings since September 2002. She stressed that (i) in her
constitutional complaint she had also indicated the file number of
the proceedings before the Košice I District Court, (ii) she
had complained of the overall length of the proceedings and (iii) the
Constitutional Court's decision on admissibility of 18 January 2006
had been erroneous as at the time of lodging her complaint no file
number had been assigned yet to the proceedings before the Košice
II District Court.
- The Court recalls that the rule of exhaustion of
domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the
Convention obliges the applicant to use the
remedies available in compliance with the formal requirements and
time-limits laid down in domestic law, as interpreted and applied by
domestic courts. On the other hand, the Court has recognised that the
rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be applied with some
degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Akdivar
and Others v. Turkey, 16 September
1996, §§ 65-69, Reports
1996-IV). It has further recognised that the rule is neither absolute
nor capable of being applied automatically; in reviewing whether it
has been observed it is essential to have regard to the particular
circumstances of the case (see Aksoy v. Turkey
judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, §§ 51-54;
Şarli v. Turkey, judgment of 22 May 2001, no. 24490/94,
§ 59). The Court must therefore examine whether, in all the
circumstances of the case, the applicant did everything that could
reasonably be expected of her to exhaust domestic remedies.
- The Court notes that the maintenance proceedings were
initiated before the Košice I District Court. After 6 months,
the case file was incorrectly transferred to the Košice II
District Court, where it remained for almost 3 years without any
legal basis. Following identification of that error, the President of
the Košice II District Court instructed the judge dealing with
the case to take immediate measures without further specification.
The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the overall
length of the proceedings had been excessive. As according to the
information obtained from the President of the Košice I
District Court the case file was with the Košice II District
Court at that time, the applicant directed her constitutional
complaint formally against the latter. The Constitutional Court
declared admissible the complaint directed against the Košice
II District Court. Only following the Constitutional Court's decision
on admissibility, the applicant and the Constitutional Court learned,
from a letter of the President of the Košice II District
Court, that in November 2005 the case file had been remitted to the
Košice I District Court in order that the latter could
re-transfer it in a due manner to the Košice II District
Court.
- The Constitutional Court examined the length of
proceedings only as regards the period after November 2005 when the
case file had been re-transferred in a due manner to the Košice
II District Court. The Court notes that the Košice I District
Court had the case file at its disposal only for six months before it
had erroneously transferred it to the Košice II District
Court. The Košice II District Court, on the other hand, failed
to identify and rectify that error until the introduction of the
constitutional complaint by the applicant, i.e. after almost
three years.
- In view of the above, the Court accepts that the
applicant did everything that could reasonably be expected of her to
obtain redress before the Constitutional Court. It further considers
that the Constitutional Court dealt with the applicant's complaint
with excessive formalism. It failed to take into account all the
circumstances of the case and, in particular, the fact that the
Košice II District
Court had kept the file without any relevant justification for
a substantial part of the period under consideration. The
Government's objection relating to the applicant's failure to exhaust
domestic remedies must therefore be rejected.
- The Court concludes that the application is not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of
the Convention and it is neither inadmissible on any other grounds.
It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
applicant reiterated that the overall length of the proceedings
before the Košice I and II District Courts had lasted too long
and that both district courts had been responsible for the delays.
- The
Government, pointing to the Constitutional Court's reasoning,
admitted that undue delays had occurred in the proceedings before the
Košice I District Court and argued that the complaint
concerning proceedings before the Košice II District Court is
manifestly-ill founded. They underlined that the proceedings
complained of had ended within three months after the Constitutional
Court's finding.
- 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 maintenance disputes.
- 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 3,319 euros (EUR) and 39 cents in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government considered the claim exaggerated.
- The
Court considers that it should award the full sum claimed and round
up the total sum to EUR 3,320.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 288.12 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Constitutional Court and EUR 663.88 for those incurred
before the Court.
- The
Government had no objection to the award of demonstrably incurred
costs and expenses in the proceedings before the Court.
- 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 that the sum claimed should be awarded in full and round
down the total sum to EUR 950.
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 3,320 (three thousand three hundred and
twenty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 950 (nine hundred and fifty 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 October 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President
