[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Stankova v Slovak Republic - 7205/02 [2011] ECHR 605 (10 March 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/605.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 605

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)33¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Stanková against Slovak Republic

(Application No. 7205/02, judgment of 09/10/2007, final on 31/03/2008)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home, following her eviction without being offered alternative accommodation (violation of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)33

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Stanková against Slovak Republic

Introductory case summary

This case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home, following her eviction in 1999 without being offered alternative accommodation (violation of Article 8).

In 1992 the applicant and her two children left the flat for which she and her husband held a joint tenancy, and started living at a flat owned by the Poprad Municipality, leased by the applicant’s father. The divorce of the applicant and her husband became final on 07/11/1994. Following the death of the applicant’s father on 21/01/1994, the local authority determined that the tenancy rights had not passed to the applicant under Article 706§1 of the Civil Code. No alternative flat was offered to her. As a result of the applicant’s refusal to move out of the flat, the local authority brought eviction proceedings against her which were enforced on 18/06/1999. The applicant challenged the proceedings in the Constitutional Court which found that the Regional Court’s decision to uphold the eviction order had violated the applicant’s rights under the Constitution (right to protection of private and family life and for one’s home). The Constitutional Court found that the requirements of Article 706§1 regarding the inheritance of the flat had not been met, but held that, considering the applicant’s circumstances and that no alternative accommodation was offered to her, the Regional Court’s decision was disproportionate and had not been necessary in a democratic society as it had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. However, at that time, the Constitutional Court could not provide redress for any violations it found.

The European Court agreed with the Constitutional Court’s assessment and concluded that the interference complained of was not “necessary in a democratic society”.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

b) Individual measures

The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It made no award for pecuniary damage as the claim was not shown to be causally linked to the violation.

In 2008, following the European Court’s judgment, the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the Poprad municipality aimed at declaring her tenant of the apartment in Poprad. On 17/06/2010 - due to the fact that the apartment at issue was not owned by the municipality - the Poprad Disctrict Court obliged the latter to provide the applicant an equivalent flat in Poprad. Both parties lodged an appeal and the case is currently before the Prešov Regional Court. In addition, in 2009 the Poprad municipality built 84 council apartments and the applicant was asked by the authorities to submit documents to prove that she meets requirements to be granted one of these apartments. The applicant refused to do so and requested the municipality not to contact her further in the matter, as she was not interested in moving into one of these apartments.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

Following an amendment to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, as in force from 01/01/2002, natural and legal persons may complain (sťaZnosť) about a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms. Under this provision, the Constitutional Court has the power, if a complaint is justified, to order the authority concerned to take the necessary action. It may also grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose fundamental rights and freedoms have been violated.

Under Article 3§1 of the Civil Code, the exercise of civil rights and obligations must not interfere with the justified rights and interests of others unless there are relevant legal grounds and must not be contra bonos mores. Article 3 permits the granting of relief from hardship in justified cases by ensuring that alternative accommodation should be provided to persons who have been ordered to move out of a flat. The European Court, agreeing with the Constitutional Court’s assessment, considered that the lower courts had not correctly applied Article 3 of the Civil Code when considering the circumstances of the applicant.

On 31/07/2008 the judgment was distributed to all regional courts under cover of a letter from the Agent of the Slovak Republic before the European Court. The presidents of regional courts have been asked to bring the judgment to the attention of all judges of regional and district courts within their jurisdiction. The judgment has been translated and published in Justičná Revue 12/2007.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.