THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SIKA
v. SLOVAKIA (No. 7)
(Application no.
1640/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 June 2013
This judgment is final but it may be subject to
editorial revision.
In the case of Sika v. Slovakia (No. 7),
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as
a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Ján Šikuta,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 June 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an
application (no. 1640/07) 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 Vladimír Sika (“the applicant”), on 2
January 2007.
The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by Ms M. Pirošíková, their Agent.
On 16 December 2010 the application was
communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Applicant and his employment
The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Trnava.
The present case concerns claims asserted by the
applicant on the basis of his employment under a contract of 1980, amended as
of 1982, and terminated by notice of his employer in 1997. This employment gave
rise to three sets of proceedings, two of which are relevant for the present
case.
The proceedings directly concerned by the present
application are those in the applicant’s action of 2005 (see paragraphs 7 et
seq. below). The proceedings concerned indirectly are those in his action
of 1998 (see paragraph 9 below).
B. Action of 2005
On 1 February 2005 the applicant lodged an action
with the Trnava District Court (file no. 26C 9/2005) arguing that in the period
from the amendment of his employment contract of 1982 until the notice of 1997
he had been paid under a wrong salary grade. Accordingly, he sought
an order for payment of the equivalent of some 75.850 euros (EUR) by way
of compensation.
On 7 February 2005 the applicant extended his
action in that he also sought a ruling declaring the 1982 amendment to his employment
contract valid and still in force.
The applicant subsequently requested that the
proceedings in his action of 2005 be joined with the proceedings in his action
of 1998, in which he was contesting the notice of 1997.
On 15 November 2006 the Trnava District Court
discontinued the proceedings in the action of 2005 but the decision was quashed
by the Trnava Regional Court on 28 September 2007, following the applicant’s
appeal.
As a consequence of the reorganisation of the
judiciary as from 1 January 2008, the action of 2005 was transferred to Piešťany
District Court (file no. 5C 28/2008).
On 23 March 2010 the applicant made a submission
aimed at further specifying the subject-matter of his 2005 action.
On 8 June 2010 the Piešťany District Court
dismissed the 2005 action because the applicant’s financial claims were statute-barred
and he had failed to demonstrate a pressing legal interest in having the
declaratory ruling made. However, this judgment was quashed by the Regional Court on 31 January 2012, following the applicant’s appeal, on the ground that the
first-instance court had failed to take any decision in respect of the applicant’s
submission of 23 March 2010.
On 3 December 2012 the Piešťany District
Court allowed the extension of the applicant’s 2005 action as sought in his
submission of 23 March 2010 and, on 26 February 2013, it dismissed the
amended 2005 action. It found that the applicant’s financial claims were partly
statute-barred and partly unfounded and that, in any event, his
employment had been effectively terminated by operation of the notice of 1997.
The applicant appealed and his appeal is still
pending.
C. Complains to presidents of courts
The applicant made several complaints to the
administration of courts about the length of the proceedings in his action of
2005, all to no avail.
D. Constitutional complaints
1. First complaint
On 15 November 2006 the applicant lodged a
complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court
contesting the length of the proceedings in his 2005 action before the Trnava
District Court.
On 30 November 2006 the Constitutional Court declared
the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It concluded that,
despite certain delays in the proceedings, their length had not reached a level
incompatible with the reasonable-time requirement.
2. Second complaint
On 23 September 2009 the applicant resorted to
the Constitutional Court again, alleging a violation of the reasonable-time
requirement by the Trnava District Court and the Trnava Regional Court.
On 14 October 2009 the Constitutional Court declared
the complaint inadmissible as being belated. It observed that as from 1 January
2008 the 2005 action was no longer pending before the Trnava District Court but
before the Piešťany District Court. Accordingly, from that time on the
Trnava District Court could not have been violating the applicant’s right under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. For unclear reasons, the conclusion was
extended to the Trnava Regional Court.
3. Third complaint
On 21 October 2009 the applicant made further
submissions to the Constitutional Court which resulted into a third
constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings in the 2005 action.
The complaint was considered formally to have been lodged on 10 December 2009
and it was directed both against the Trnava District Court and the Piešťany
District Court.
On 31 March 2010 the Constitutional Court declared
the complaint inadmissible.
In so far as the complaint related to the Trnava District Court,
it was inadmissible as the matter was considered a res iudicata by force
of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 14 October 2009.
As to the Piešťany District Court, the Constitutional
Court found that the applicant had failed to comply with the statutory
requirement for the admissibility of constitutional complains to exhaust ordinary
remedies in that he had failed to assert his length-of-proceedings complaint
before the President of the Piešťany District Court.
E. State Liability for Damage
On 28 November 2011 the applicant lodged an action
against the State in the person of the Ministry of Justice. He relied on the
State Liability Act and argued that there had been unjustified delays in the
proceedings in his actions of 1998 and 2005 and that these delays amounted to
wrongful official action, for which he sought financial compensation.
On 26 October 2012 the Trnava District Court dismissed
the action finding that the applicant had failed to show any unlawfulness or
wrongful official action and neither had he shown having sustained any damage.
The applicant appealed and his appeal is still
pending.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF
THE CONVENTION
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention, the applicant complained that the proceedings in his action of
2005 had lasted too long and that, being unable to secure their timely
resolution, he had been put in a lasting situation of legal uncertainty.
The Court communicated the above complaints
under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the
relevant part of which reads as follows.
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,
everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ...
tribunal...”
Article 13 of the Convention:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the]
Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national
authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons
acting in an official capacity.”
A. Admissibility
The Government argued that the applicant had had
at his disposal effective remedies, which he had failed to exhaust. In that
respect, they advanced two separate lines of argument.
First, relying on the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 30
November 2006, 14 October 2009 and 31 March 2010 (see paragraphs 18, 20 and 22
above) and citing in extenso the Constitutional Court’s reasoning behind
those decisions, the Government contended that the applicant had failed
to bring his constitutional complaints in accordance with the applicable
formal requirements. In particular, prior to his constitutional complaints, the
applicant had failed properly to assert his complaints before the presidents of
the general courts concerned.
Second, the Government argued that the applicant had failed to
seek redress in respect of the alleged violation of his Article 6 rights by way
of an action for damages under the State Liability Act.
In reply, the applicant emphasised that the
proceedings in his action of 2005 were interrelated with the proceedings in his
action of 1998, that they were to be viewed as such, and that he had also unsuccessfully
contested the length the latter proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
The applicant further opposed to the findings of fact and law
in the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 30 November 2006, 14 October 2009
and 31 March 2010 and submitted that he had properly asserted his length-of-proceedings
claims by all available means.
Lastly, the applicant submitted that, in response to the
Government’s inadmissibly objection, he had ultimately also filed an action for
damages under the State Liability Act (see paragraph 23 above), in the
prospects of success of which he had however no faith.
The Court observes first of all that the scope
of the present application is limited to the proceedings in the applicant’s action
of 2005 (see paragraph 26 above).
The Court further observes that in its judgments
in the cases of Ištván and Ištvánová v. Slovakia (no. 30189/07, §§ 52-55, 63-99 and 106, 12 June 2012) and
Komanický v. Slovakia (no. 6) (no. 40437/07, §§ 51-54, 60-96 and 102, 12 June 2012) it
examined at length and ultimately dismissed substantially the same objections
as the Government raises in the present case. It finds no reasons for reaching
a different conclusion now.
. In addition, as the complaint to the
president of the given court, as an intended requirement for the
admissibility of the constitutional complaint, the Court is of the opinion that
the problematic nature of this requirement is highlighted in cases such as the
present one where the proceedings have taken place before several different courts.
. For that matter, the Court observes
that it has to satisfy itself in each individual case whether the protection of
a person’s right granted by the Constitutional Court was comparable to that
which the Court could provide under the Convention. In cases concerning the
length of proceedings, this requirement will only be met where the domestic
remedy in question is capable of covering all stages of the proceedings
complained of and thus, in the same way as decisions given by the Court, of
taking into account their overall length (see Bako v. Slovakia (dec.),
no. 60227/00, 15 March 2005).
. Viewed from this perspective, it has
to be noted that a requirement to complain to the presidents of the given
courts of the length of the proceedings before those courts prior to being
allowed to assert the same claim in the Constitutional Court implies a
separation of the proceedings into segments taking place before the courts
involved, which is not conducive to the covering of the overall length of such proceedings.
. Furthermore, as to the action under
the State Liability Act, the Court reiterates that in its judgments in Ištván
and Ištvánová (cited above, §§ 92-98) and Komanický (cited
above, §§ 89-95) it found that this was not a remedy
to be used in length-of-proceedings complaints in Slovakia. It finds no reasons for reaching a different conclusion in
the present case.
Accordingly, the Government’s preliminary objections
must be dismissed.
The period to be taken into consideration began
on 1 February 2005 and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted more than eight
years and two months for two levels of jurisdiction while at the first instance
the action was examined at two different courts.
The Court notes
that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) 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).
Furthermore, the Court reiterates that special
diligence is necessary in employment disputes (Ruotolo v. Italy, 27
February 1992, § 17, Series A no. 230-D). However, in that respect, the
Court observes that although - formally speaking - the applicant’s action of
2005 did concern his employment, the importance of this fact is diminished
because a large part of his 2005 claims has concerned a long-gone period of the
years 1982 to 1997 without a direct link to the present time.
Nevertheless, 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 of the
Convention.
Furthermore, in view of the conclusions reached
above as regards exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the
complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court
finds that there has likewise been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
II. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
Lastly, in connection with the violations alleged
above, the applicant has also complained of a violation of his rights under
Article 14 of the Convention.
However, in the light of all the material in its
possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its
competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a
violation of the applicant’s rights under the provision invoked.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly
ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4
of the Convention.
III. 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 EUR 381,700 in respect of
pecuniary damage as well as EUR 130,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The
claim in respect of pecuniary damage represented the amount of the applicant’s financial
claims as asserted at the domestic level.
The Government contested these claims submitting
that there was no causal link between the former claim and the subject-matter
of the present application and that the latter claim was overstated.
The Court does not discern any causal link
between the violations found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore
rejects this claim.
On the other hand, the Court considers that the applicant
must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, and
having regard to all the circumstances - including what was at stake in the
proceedings for the applicant (see paragraph 40 above) - it awards him EUR 2,000
under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant also claimed compensation in respect
of legal fees and administrative expenses. For that matter, he submitted bills
dating back to 1999 and 2000 showing that he had paid the equivalent of some EUR 680.48
in legal fees. He submitted that he was not in a position to specify and
to show that he had paid further legal fees and that he had incurred
administrative expenses. In that respect, therefore, he invited the Court to make
an award of a lump sum.
The Government contested these claims.
The Court observes first of all that the
violations found in the present case concern the proceedings in the applicant’s
action of 2005, while the bills submitted in support of the applicant’s claim
date back to the years of 1999 and 2000. It further observes that the remainder
of those claims has been wholly unsubstantiated. Thus, regard being had to the
documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers that
the claim for costs and expenses must be rejected.
C. Default interest
The Court considers it appropriate that the
default interest rate 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 admissible
the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the
Convention and inadmissible the remainder of
the application;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 13 of the Convention;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months EUR 2,000 (two thousand 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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 June 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena
Tsirli Luis
López Guerra
Deputy Registrar President
