[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF ČETVERTAKAS AND OTHERS
v. LITHUANIA
(Application
no. 16013/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 January 2009
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 Četvertakas and Others v. Lithuania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Işil
Karakaş,
judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 16 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 16013/02) against the
Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Lithuanian national, Mr Andrius Četvertakas, on
14 March 2002. Ms Ona-Danguolė Četvertakienė
and Mr Viktor Četvertak, who are also Lithuanian nationals,
joined this application on 26 September 2003.
- The
Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Ms E. Baltutytė.
- On
5 November 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the
merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
first applicant, Mr Andrius Četvertakas, was born in 1973. The
second applicant, Ms Ona-Danguolė Četvertakienė, was
born in 1941. The third applicant, Mr Viktor Četvertak, was born
in 1943. The applicants live in Vilnius. The second and the third
applicants are parents of the first applicant.
- In
1993 the first applicant bought part of a building, including a
cellar and warehouse, and a plot of land adjacent to the building.
The seller of the property, R.R., had purchased it from the local
authorities.
- In
1994 the first applicant's neighbour, A.K., bought another flat in
the same building. The privatisation agreement concluded with the
local authorities stipulated that A.K. had also acquired part of the
warehouse and the cellar.
- On
18 July 1994 A.K. brought an action requesting annulment of the
decisions whereby part of the land adjacent to the building had been
sold to the first applicant.
- On
an unspecified date the parties brought new interlocutory claims
regarding the ownership of the warehouse.
- On
23 February 1995 the Vilnius City Third District Court granted the
action of A.K. in part and ordered the local authorities to readjust
the borders of the plot of land at issue.
- On
7 November 1995 the Vilnius Regional Court quashed the decision and
returned the case for examination de novo. It was established
that the lower court had ruled on claims which had not been put
forward by the parties and that the court had not assessed whether
the rights of A.K. had been breached. Moreover, the local authority
should have been invited to join the proceedings as a third party.
- On
12 January 1996 several additional claims were brought by A.K.. The
applicant submitted a new counterclaim, requesting non-pecuniary
damages.
- On
4 April 1997 the Vilnius City Third District Court dismissed the
action of A.K., accepting the first applicant's claims in part. In
particular, the court declared null and void the agreement whereby
A.K. had acquired half of the warehouse.
- On
11 May 1998 the Vilnius Regional Court quashed the decision due to
various procedural flaws, in particular the failure to resolve the
question of the amount of the court fee to be paid. It was also noted
that the lower court had failed to request certain evidence and
therefore had not established certain facts relating to the property
at issue. It also failed to establish whether R.R. had acquired the
land from the local authority lawfully. The case was remitted to the
Vilnius City Third District Court for a fresh examination.
- On
an unspecified date in 2000, A.K. brought several new claims. He
requested, inter alia, that the first applicant be obliged to
grant him access to the cellar in the building. On 18 May 2000 the
first applicant submitted a counterclaim.
- On
20 September 2000 the Vilnius City Third District Court granted the
action of A.K. It was established that R.R. had unlawfully obtained a
bigger plot of land than the one she was entitled to, thereby
breaching the rights of A.K. As R.R. had had no right to sell that
plot to the first applicant, the court annulled the contract between
the first applicant and R.R. and ordered full restitution. The first
applicant was also instructed not to obstruct access by A.K. to the
cellar. The first applicant's counterclaims regarding the warehouse
were dismissed as unsubstantiated. The local authority and the first
applicant appealed.
- On
21 February 2001 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the decision.
- On
5 September 2001 the first applicant lodged a cassation appeal
asking the Supreme Court to quash the lower court's decision and to
adopt a new decision without remitting the case for further
examination.
- On
10 October 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the first applicant's
cassation appeal and left the lower courts' decisions unchanged.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- Article
30 of the Constitution stipulates:
“The person whose constitutional rights or
freedoms are violated shall have the right to apply to court.”
- The
Civil Code, in force until 1 July 2001, provided:
Article 483. General liability grounds for causing
damage
“The person who causes damage to a natural person
or to his property ... must compensate it fully, except in cases
prescribed by laws...
A person who causes damage is exempted from liability if
he proves that the damage was not caused through his fault.
Damage caused by lawful acts must be compensated only in
cases established by law ...”
- Article
6.272 §§ 2 and 3 of the Civil Code, in force since 1 July
2001, provides:
“2. The State shall be liable to full
compensation for the damage caused by unlawful actions of a judge or
the court trying a civil case, where the damage is caused through the
fault of the judge himself or that of any other court official.
3. In addition to pecuniary damage, the aggrieved person
shall be entitled to non-pecuniary damage.”
- The
ruling of the Constitutional Court of 19 August 2006 stipulates:
“...by virtue of the Constitution, a person has
the right to claim compensation for damage caused by the unlawful
actions of State institutions and agents, even if such compensation
is not foreseen by law; the courts adjudicating such cases ... have
the power to award appropriate compensation by directly applying the
principles of the Constitution ... as well as the general principles
of law, while being guided inter alia by the principle of
reasonableness, etc”.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings had
been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement
of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as
relevant, 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
Government contested that argument.
Admissibility
1. The parties' submissions
- The
Government maintained that the second and the third applicants could
not be regarded as victims of any Convention breach as they were not
affected by the civil proceedings in which the first applicant had
been involved.
- The
Government also argued that the first applicant had failed to exhaust
all effective domestic remedies as he had not applied to the domestic
courts claiming redress for the length of the civil proceedings,
pursuant to Article 483 of the Civil Code, in force until 1 July
2001, and under Article 6.272 of the Civil Code, in force after that
date. Relying on the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 19 August
2006, the Government also argued that, even presuming that specific
redress had not been enshrined in any law, the applicant could have
claimed redress by directly relying on the Constitution or on the
general principles of law.
- The
first applicant contested these submissions.
2. The Court
- The
Court agrees with the Government's objection that the second and
third applicants, who were not parties to the civil proceedings,
cannot be considered victims of a violation of the Convention within
the meaning of Article 34. Therefore their complaint under Article 6
§ 1 is to be rejected as being incompatible ratione personae,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
- As
to the Government's plea concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies,
the Court recalls its conclusion in the case of Baškienė
v. Lithuania (no. 11529/04, §§ 68-72, 24 July
2007), where it decided that a claim for damages under Article 6.272
of the Civil Code did not satisfy the test of “effectiveness”
in contexts of the present kind. The
Court finds no reason to depart from its existing case-law in this
regard. It remains unconvinced that the possibility of claiming
damages for the excessive length of proceedings under Article 6.272
of the Civil Code – at the moment of the introduction of the
present application – had already acquired a sufficient degree
of legal certainty requiring its exhaustion for the purposes of
Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
- Finally,
whereas the Government argued that the first applicant could have
brought a claim based on Article 483 of the Civil Code, in force
until 1 July 2001, or on the general principles of law or the
Constitution, they have not adduced any evidence to demonstrate that
such a remedy had any reasonable prospect of success, especially
before the ruling of the Constitutional Court on 19 August 2006.
- It
follows that the Government's objection must be dismissed.
- The
Court considers 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
- As regards the period to be taken into consideration,
the Court first observes that the civil proceedings were instituted
on 18 July 1994. However, the period to be taken into consideration
began only on 20 June 1995, when the recognition by Lithuania of
the right of individual petition took effect. It ended on 10 October
2001, when the Supreme Court took its decision. It therefore lasted
nearly six years and four months at three levels of jurisdiction.
- 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
application (see OZek v. Slovenia, no. 1423/02, §§ 17-19,
13 April 2006).
- Turning
to the case at hand, the Court notes that the proceedings involved
many parties and were therefore of a certain complexity. However the
Court finds that extensive delays in the proceedings were occasioned
by mistakes or inertia on the part of the domestic authorities. In
particular, the case was returned for re-examination by the Vilnius
Regional Court on 7 November 1995, because of a number of
deficiencies on the part of the first-instance court (see
paragraph 10 above). The Vilnius Regional Court pointed out that
the lower court had failed to examine whether the rights of A.K. had
been breached, had ruled on claims which had not been raised by the
parties, and had failed to invite the local authority to join the
proceedings as a third party.
- Furthermore,
on 11 May 1998 the Vilnius Regional Court quashed the decision of the
first-instance court for the second time due to various procedural
flaws and the lower court's failure to establish certain facts and to
obtain certain evidence which had not been examined during the
hearings (see paragraph 13 above). The case was again remitted for a
fresh examination.
- Having
regard to all the material submitted to it and to its case-law on the
subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of
the civil proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the
“reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
first applicant further alleged that the annulment of the
land-purchase contract amounted to a violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Court agrees that there has
been an interference with the first applicant's property rights.
However, in quashing the land-purchase contract, the courts sought to
protect the legitimate rights of his neighbour A.K.. In addition, the
court ordered full restitution (see paragraph 15 above). It follows
that this part of application must be rejected as being manifestly
ill-founded under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
- The first applicant also
complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that
the courts were unfair and incorrectly assessed evidence in his case.
- In this respect the Court reiterates that it is not a
court of appeal from the decisions of domestic courts and that, as a
general rule, it is for the latter to assess the evidence before
them. The Court's task under the Convention is to ascertain whether
the proceedings as a whole were fair (see, among many authorities,
García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §§ 28-29,
ECHR 1999-I). On the basis of the materials submitted by the first
applicant, the Court notes that within the framework of the civil
proceedings the applicant was able to introduce all necessary
arguments in defence of his interests, and that the judicial
authorities gave them due consideration. His claims were examined at
three levels of jurisdiction and dismissed as having no grounds in
domestic law. The decisions of the domestic courts do not appear
unreasonable or arbitrary. It follows that this part of
the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
- The
first applicant also complained that his rights had been infringed
under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention, which guarantee,
respectively, the right to respect for the home, the right to an
effective domestic remedy and the prohibition on discrimination.
- In
the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the
matters complained of were within its competence, the Court considers
that the present case does not disclose any appearance of a violation
of any of the above Convention provisions. It follows that these
complaints are inadmissible under Article 35 § 3
as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to
Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
- Invoking
Article 1 of the Convention, the second and the third applicants
complained that the domestic courts were unjust. However, the Court
recalls that, apart from the fact that this provision is of a
framework character, which cannot be the subject of a separate
breach, it has already held, above, that these applicants cannot
claim to be victims of any violation of the Convention (see paragraph
28).
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
first applicant claimed 585,000 Lithunian litai (LTL, approximately
169,428 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage and 1,205,000 LTL
(approximately EUR 348,992) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested these claims as unreasoned and excessive.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
However, it awards the first applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
first applicant claimed LTL 1,464 (approximately EUR 423) for costs
and expenses related to the revision of the cadastral data and
evaluation of the plot of land as well as LTL 393 (approximately EUR
113) for translation costs.
- The
Government argued that this costs claim was not relevant to the
alleged violation of the reasonable time requirement, and thus should
be dismissed.
- 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, were
reasonable as to quantum and were incurred in an attempt to redress
the Convention grievance subsequently made to the Court. In the
present case the Court finds that the sum of EUR 423 is not
related to the established violation of the first applicant's right
to a “hearing within a reasonable time”. Therefore the
Court only awards this applicant the sum of EUR 113 for the
translation costs.
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
- Declares the first applicant's 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;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the first applicant, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
the following sums, to be converted into the currency of the
responded State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i)
EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable,
in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and
(ii)
EUR 113 (one hundred and thirteen euros) in respect of costs and
expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to this applicant;
(b) that from
the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts 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 first applicant's
claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 January 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise
Tulkens
Registrar President
