[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF POBIJAKOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 45148/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18
March 2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Pobijaková v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza,
President,
Giovanni Bonello,
Stanislav
Pavlovschi,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku, judges,
and Lawrence
Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 26 February 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 45148/06) 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, Mrs Mária
Pobijaková (“the applicant”), on 30 October 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr A. Zitník, a lawyer practising
in PovaZská Bystrica. The Slovak Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs
M. Pirošíková.
3. On
10 July 2007 the President of the Fourth Section decided to
give priority treatment to the application in accordance with Article
41 of the Convention.
- On
19 July 2007 the
President decided to give notice of the application to the
Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was
decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at
the same time.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Bytča.
1. Action for ownership
- On
22 April 1992 the applicant and another individual brought an action
against twenty-four other individuals in the Zilina
District Court. They sought a ruling declaring them to be the owners
of agricultural land in Štiavnik.
- On
25 May and 19 August 1992 the District Court requested the plaintiffs
to provide further information, which they did on 9 June and
27 August 1992, respectively.
- On
29 September 1992 the plaintiffs withdrew the action in respect of
five defendants.
- On
2 February 1993 the District Court held a hearing.
- In
March 1993 the plaintiffs appointed a new lawyer who withdrew the
action in respect of three further defendants and identified one new
defendant.
- On
12 August 1993 the District Court approved the withdrawal of the
action against several defendants and the extension of the action to
include a new defendant.
- On
8 November 1993 the District Court held a hearing at which twelve of
the defendants failed to appear. The plaintiffs modified their
statement of claim and extended the action to include another
individual. The hearing was adjourned with a view to hearing the
absent defendants and obtaining further information.
- In
November 1993 and March 1994 the plaintiffs submitted further
information.
- On
1 and 11 March 1994 three defendants were heard through the
intermediary of a court in the judicial district where they lived.
- In
June, October and November 1994 the District Court requested an
advance on the costs of the inspection of the property and further
information.
- On
8 December 1994 the plaintiffs’ lawyer informed the court that
she was unable to obtain a document that it had requested.
- In
October 1995 the District Court requested that another defendant be
heard thought the intermediary of the court in the judicial district
where she lived. The minutes of the hearing were filed on 15 January
1996.
- On
15 May 1996 the District Court held a hearing at which it was learnt
that one of the defendants had died.
- In
May, June and November 1996 the District Court requested the
plaintiffs on three occasions to clarify who the actual defendants
were. Their lawyer applied twice for an extension of the time-limit
for replying.
- On
21 January 1997 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on
the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to respond to the court’s
requests for information. On 12 March 1997 the plaintiffs
appealed. They were subsequently requested on two occasions to submit
the reasons for their appeal.
- On
5 September 1997 the plaintiffs’ lawyer informed the court that
the applicant’s co-plaintiff had died.
- On
16 October 1997 the plaintiffs submitted the reasons for the appeal.
- On
21 November 1997 the District Court sought the defendants’
observations in reply to the appeal.
- In
February and May 1998 the District Court requested the death
certificate of the applicant’s co-plaintiff and invited the son
of the deceased co-plaintiff to indicate whether he wished to
continue the action in her stead. He responded in the affirmative.
- In
September 1998 the plaintiffs informed the court that the
identification of the land in dispute had changed following the
change in the real property referencing system.
- On
22 August 2000 the District Court quashed its own decision to
discontinue the proceedings and resumed them.
- On
3 October 2000 the District Court held a hearing.
- On
22 November 2000 and 24 April 2001 the District Court requested the
plaintiffs, respectively, to identify the defendants in view of the
new identification of the land and to submit, within three months, a
fresh surveyor’s plan concerning the land.
- The
plaintiffs changed legal representation. On 28 August 2001 their
newly appointed lawyer asked for a new time-limit for submitting the
surveyor’s plan.
- In
the subsequent period the plaintiffs encountered difficulties in
finding a surveyor willing to draw up a plan of the property and they
were asked to clarify misgivings as to their legal representation.
- On
16 October 2002 the applicant’s lawyer submitted the surveyor’s
plan.
- On
13 May 2004 the applicant reformulated the action in that she sought
a ruling declaring her to be the sole owner of the land.
- In
October 2004 the case was assigned to a new judge.
- In
August and September 2005 the file was examined in the context of
proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
- On
30 September 2005 the District Court re-submitted the file to the
Regional Court in Zilina for a decision on
the applicant’s appeal against the decision to discontinue the
proceedings delivered on 21 January 1997.
- On
30 May 2006 the President of the Regional Court reminded the
presiding judge of the need to proceed with the case speedily in
accordance with the Constitutional Court’s order (see below).
- On
2 June 2006 the Regional Court returned the file to the District
Court after it had established that the latter had itself quashed the
decision in issue on 22 August 2000.
- Between
January and April 2007 the District Court established relevant facts
and made inquiries concerning the parties and their representatives.
On 29 May 2007 it issued a decision concerning the representation of
two defendants.
- On
10 August 2007 the District Court asked the applicant to submit
further information in respect of her earlier requests for
modification of her action. It also asked several defendants for
comments on the applicant’s proposal to withdraw the action.
- The
proceedings are pending.
2. Constitutional proceedings
a) Complaint of 2002
- On
6 December 2002 the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, filed
a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the
Constitutional Court. She asserted that there had been a violation
of her right to a hearing without unjustified delay
(Article 48 § 2 of
the Constitution) and claimed 100,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) in
damages.
- On
2 April 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court
in Zilina had violated the applicant’s
right to a hearing without unjustified delay, ordered acceleration of
the proceedings and awarded the applicant SKK 20,000
by way of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
reimbursement of her legal costs. It found that the subject-matter of
the proceedings was complex owing to the number of defendants, which
moreover had changed in the course of the proceedings, and the change
in the land referencing system. The applicant had caused some delay
by failing to identify clearly the defendants and the land. The
District Court had been inactive without justification for some 27
months between 13 May 1998 and 22 August 2000.
b) Complaint of 2005
- On
16 June 2005 the applicant filed a fresh constitutional complaint
based on the recurring unjustified delays in the proceedings. She
claimed SKK 600,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
- On
30 November 2005 the Constitutional Court found that, in the period
after its judgment of 2 April 2003, there had been a further
violation by the District Court in Zilina of
the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified
delay. It ordered acceleration of the proceedings and awarded the
applicant SKK 50,000
by way of just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
reimbursement of her legal costs.
- The
Constitutional Court found that in the relevant period the
subject matter of the proceedings was of no particular legal
complexity. Even assuming that the case was to some extent complex on
its facts, this provided no justification for the length of the
proceedings. No delays could be imputed to the applicant. As for the
conduct of the proceedings, the District Court had acted
inefficiently throughout the relevant period. Reference was made also
to the overall length of the proceedings which had exceeded 13 years.
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...”
- The
proceedings started on 22 April 1992 and, according to the
information available, they are still pending. Their length has
therefore exceeded 15 years and 10 months. During this period the
first-instance court has not yet determined the merits of the
applicant’s action.
- With
reference to the Constitutional Court’s judgment the Government
admitted that the proceedings had lasted an excessively long time.
They objected, however, that the application was inadmissible for the
reasons set out below.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government argued that the applicant had obtained appropriate redress
in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. She therefore
could no longer claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article
34 of the Convention, of a violation of her right to a hearing within
a reasonable time.
- In
her application of 30 October 2006 the applicant argued, inter
alia, that the just satisfaction awarded to her by the
Constitutional Court was insufficient and that the proceedings had
not been accelerated despite the orders of the Constitutional Court.
She submitted no comments on the subsequent observations of the
respondent Government.
- The
Court notes that the proceedings had been pending for 13 years and
more than 6 months when the Constitutional Court delivered its second
judgment on 30 November 2005. After having analysed the proceedings
complained of on two occasions in the light of the criteria which the
Court also applies, it awarded the applicant the equivalent of
approximately EUR 1,800 in all. That amount corresponds to 14 per
cent of what the Court would be likely to award the applicant in
accordance with its practice at that time.
- The
low amount of just satisfaction awarded by the Constitutional Court,
as compared with the amounts usually granted by the Court, alone
leads to the conclusion that the redress provided to the applicant at
domestic level was insufficient (Judt v. Slovakia,
no. 70985/01, §§ 62-63, 9 October 2007 with
further reference).
- It
is further to be observed that the order of the Constitutional Court
to accelerate the proceedings (see paragraph 42 above) did not
produce the desired effect (see paragraph 44 above).
- In
these circumstances, the argument that the applicant has lost her
status as “a victim” cannot be upheld.
- 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
- 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 material submitted to it and having regard to its
case-law on the subject, the Court concurs with the conclusions
reached by the Constitutional Court 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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained that she had no effective remedy at her
disposal in respect of her complaint of the excessive length of
proceedings. She relied on Article 13 of the Convention which
provides:
“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.”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
Court reiterates that the word “remedy” within the
meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to
succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority
competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, e.g.,
Šidlová v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99,
§ 77, 26 September 2006). In the light of this principle
the Court finds that the fact that the redress obtained by the
applicant from the Constitutional Court was not sufficient for
Convention purposes does not render the remedy under Article 127 of
the Constitution in the circumstances of the present case
incompatible with Article 13 of the Convention (see also Solárová
and Others v. Slovakia, no. 77690/01, § 56, 5
December 2006, with further reference).
- It
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 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.”
- On
13 November 2007 the applicant was invited to submit her claim for
just satisfaction by 21 January 2008. She has submitted no such
claim. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to
award her any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 March 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
