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 ČECHOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 33378/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 October
2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Čechová v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Giovanni Bonello, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ján Šikuta, judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy 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. 33378/06) 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
Tatiana Čechová (“the applicant”), on 8
August 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr M. Mandzák, a lawyer
practising in Bratislava. The Slovak Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M.
Pirošíková.
- On
2 April 2008 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was decided to rule
on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 3). In accordance with Protocol No. 14,
the application is assigned to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Košice.
- On
13 January 2000 the applicant's former husband lodged an action
against the applicant for distribution of matrimonial property.
- On
10 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice II
District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing within
a reasonable time. It awarded the applicant the equivalent of
876 euros (at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, ordered the District Court to proceed and to
reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
- On
15 March 2006 it rejected the applicant's fresh complaint about the
length of these proceedings as being manifestly ill-founded.
- On
8 December 2009 the District Court delivered a judgment in the case.
The applicant appealed and the proceedings are still pending.
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 agreed with the Constitutional Court's findings of 2004
and 2006 and argued that the applicant should have lodged a fresh
complaint in respect of the subsequent period.
- The
applicant reiterated her complaint.
- At
the time of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 2004 the
proceedings had lasted four years and five months at one level of
jurisdiction. They are still pending. In view of its established
case law (see Becová v. Slovakia (dec.),
no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007), the
Court notes that 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, cited above).
- Having
examined all the materials submitted to it and having regard to its
case law on the subject, the Court concurs with the view
expressed by the Constitutional Court on 10 June 2004 that in the
instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed
to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. It finds
further delays in the period after that judgment.
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.”
- In
the application form submitted on 8 August 2006 the applicant
claimed, provisionally, EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses.
- On
1 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 her claims for just satisfaction by
10 October 2008. The relevant part of the Registry's letter reads as
follows:
“With regard to just-satisfaction claims, I would
draw your attention to Rule 60 and would remind you that failure to
submit within the time allowed quantified claims, together with the
required supporting documents, entails the consequence that the
Chamber will either make no award of just satisfaction or else reject
the claim in part. This applies even if the applicant has indicated
her wishes concerning just satisfaction at an earlier stage of the
proceedings.”
- The
applicant did not submit any such claims within the time limit
fixed by the Court. Accordingly, the Court makes no award under
Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, A. R.,
spol. s r. o. v. Slovakia, no. 13960/06, §§ 62-65,
9 February 2010, with further references).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 October 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Giovanni
Bonello
Deputy Registrar President
