FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF IVAN v. SLOVAKIA

(Application no. 49362/06)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 December 2010

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ivan 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 23 November 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 49362/06) 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 Pavol Ivan (“the applicant”), on 6 December 2006.
2.  The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
3.  On 7 February 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
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Žabokreky.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 9 June 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Martin District Court. He claimed the ownership and restitution of a motor car.
7.  On 10 October 2003 the applicant modified his claim and asked for leave to join another person as a defendant. The District Court granted the request.
8.  On 5 December 2003 the District Court remitted the case file to the Žilina Regional Court which decided on the defendant's appeal on 26 January 2004.
9.  On 13 July 2004 an expert was asked to prepare an opinion. The expert opinion was submitted on 27 April 2006.
10.  On 8 June 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.
11.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was not particularly complex and that the applicant by his conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. Substantial delays imputable to the District Court had occurred. The proceedings had lasted 11 years and no decision had been delivered on the merits.
12.  The Constitutional Court awarded 80,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
13.  On 12 October 2006 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim. The applicant appealed.
14.  On 31 October 2007 the Žilina Regional Court upheld the judgment. The decision became final on 27 February 2008.
THE LAW
I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
15.  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
16.  The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time since the amount of just satisfaction awarded to him by the Constitutional Court was adequate in the circumstances of the case. Moreover, the Constitutional Court's judgment had had preventive effect since four months after its finding the District Court had delivered a judgment. As to the course of the proceedings following the Constitutional Court's judgment, they submitted that the applicant was required to have recourse again to the Constitutional Court under Article 127 of the Constitution. In any event, there was no indication of any unreasonable delay.
17.  The applicant disagreed.
18.  The Court observes that the applicant's status as a victim depends on whether the redress afforded to him at the domestic level was adequate and sufficient having regard to Article 41 of the Convention. This issue falls to be determined in the light of the principles established under the Court's case-law (see, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178‑213, ECHR 2006-V and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69‑98, ECHR 2006-V).
19.  The Court notes that the applicant initiated the proceedings on 9 June 1995 by lodging a claim with the District Court. Except for one procedural issue which had been decided by the Regional Court the case had been dealt with by the District Court for almost eleven years.
20.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 80,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. This amount is disproportionately low, having regard to what the Court generally awards in similar cases.
21.  The redress obtained by the applicant at the domestic level was thus insufficient (see Scordino (no. 1), cited above, §§ 214-5). The applicant can accordingly still claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of a violation of his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.
22.  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
23.  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).
24.  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).
25.  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.
26.  The Court notes that after the delivery of the Constitutional Court's judgment the proceedings before the District Court lasted one year and eight months at two levels of jurisdiction. Thus, the overall length of the proceedings under consideration was twelve years and eight months at two levels of jurisdictions.
27.  In the light of the above-mentioned considerations and 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.
28.  There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.

II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
29.  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
30.  The applicant claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
31.  The Government left the matter to the Court's discretion and requested that the award granted to the applicant at the domestic level be taken into account. 
32.  The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non‑pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards award him EUR 3,700 under that head.
B.  Costs and expenses
33.  The applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses.
C.  Default interest
34.  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;

2.  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 EUR 3,700 (three thousand seven 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;

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Fatoş Aracı	Lech Garlicki	
	Deputy Registrar	President