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 MAJTAS v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 21076/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9
November 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Majtas v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Ján
Šikuta,
Vincent Anthony de Gaetano, judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 18 October 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 21076/06) 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, Mr Dušan Majtas (“the applicant”),
on 9 May 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr L. Pavlovič, a lawyer practising
in Bratislava (until 10 October 2008). The Government
of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
- On
5 May 2008 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol no. 14,
the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Bratislava.
- On 3 September 1996 the applicant filed an action with
the Bratislava II District Court. He claimed reimbursement of a
purchase price.
- On 4 May 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the
applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been
violated, awarded him the equivalent of 1,782 euros (EUR) at that
time as just satisfaction, ordered the court concerned to avoid any
further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's
legal costs.
- On 30 May 2006 the district court delivered a judgment.
- On 31 October 2007 the Bratislava Regional Court, on
the defendant's appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and
remitted the case for further examination to the district court.
- On 22 September 2009 the district court delivered a
judgment. Following the defendant's appeal, the proceedings are
pending before the Regional Court.
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 argued that the redress awarded by the Constitutional
Court had been sufficient and that the applicant should have lodged a
fresh complaint in respect of the subsequent period.
- The
applicant reiterated his complaint.
- At
the time of the Constitutional Court's finding of 2005 the
proceedings had lasted 8 years and 8 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 4 May 2005 that in the instant case the
length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the
“reasonable time” requirement. It notes that following
the Constitutional Court's finding the proceedings have been pending
for another 5 years and more than 4 months at two levels of
jurisdiction. The Court finds that further delays occurred.
- 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 9 May 2006 the applicant
claimed EUR 16,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
EUR 2,500 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 his claims for just satisfaction by
13 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.”
- On
31 October 2008, within the extended time-limit, the applicant stated
that he fully relied on his previous submissions in respect of
Article 41 of the Convention.
- On
24 November 2008 the Government contested the claims stating that the
applicant had failed to specify them in accordance with Article 60
of the Rules of Court and support any of his claims by evidence. They
therefore requested the Court to make no award under Article 41
of the Convention. In any event, the Government considered all the
claims exaggerated.
- On
4 December 2008 the applicant reiterated his claims as stated in the
application form.
A. Damage
- Regard
being had to the applicant's explicit reference to the claims
indicated in the application form and the circumstances of the case,
the Court awards the applicant EUR 5,800 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- 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 absence of any documents supporting the
applicant's claims, the Court makes no award 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
1. 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, EUR 5,800
(five thousand eight hundred 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 9 November 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Lech Garlicki
Deputy Registrar President
