[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF GAJDOŠ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 19304/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 June
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 Gajdoš v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza,
President,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša
Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 2 June 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 19304/04) 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 Ján
Gajdoš (“the applicant”), on 11 May 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr J. Koval, a lawyer practising in
Banská Bystrica. The Slovak Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M.
Pirošíková.
- On
16 February 2007 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article
29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Zvolen.
- On
27 April 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Zvolen District
Court. He claimed a sum of money which the defendant had failed to
pay for the work done by the applicant.
- On
9 May 1995 the District Court gave an interim judgment confirming
that the applicant's claim was justified. The amount owed by the
defendant remained to be determined in further proceedings.
- In
the subsequent period the District Court experienced some
difficulties in finding a suitable expert and obtaining an opinion
from a specialised institute.
- On
the applicant's complaint, on 26 March 2003, the Constitutional Court
found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right to a
hearing without unjustified delay. The length of the proceedings was
partly due to the factual complexity of the case. The applicant had
not contributed to the overall length of the proceedings in a
significant manner.
- The
Constitutional Court awarded 20,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) (the
equivalent of approximately 480 euros (EUR) at that time) to the
applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It
also ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without
further delay and to reimburse the applicant's costs.
- In
the subsequent period the file was pending before the Banská
Bystrica Regional Court for several months. The latter examined the
amount of the fee to be paid to the specialised institute.
- On
3 May 2004 the District Court partially found in the applicant's
favour.
- Both
the applicant and the defendant appealed.
- On
23 September 2005 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance
judgment on the merits. It quashed its part concerning the costs and
remitted the matter to the District Court. The decision on the merits
became final on 4 November 2005.
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...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government concurred with the Constitutional Court in that the length
of the proceedings in this case had been unreasonably long. However,
they argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim
of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
They expressed the view that the amount of just satisfaction awarded
at the domestic level had not been manifestly inadequate in the
circumstances of the case, and that there had been no further delays
in the period after the Constitutional Court's judgment until 4
November 2005 when the decision on the merits of the case had become
final.
- The
applicant disagreed. He argued that the redress obtained at the
domestic level had not been sufficient and that there had been
further delays in the proceedings after the Constitutional Court's
judgment until 3 May 2004 when the District Court had
delivered its judgment.
- The
Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration started
on 27 April 1994. In the absence of any information concerning
determination of the costs of the proceedings after the decision on
the merits of the case became final, and since it does not appear
from the documents available that the applicant intended to complain
about delays in that period of the proceedings, the Court will
examine the length of the proceedings until 4 November 2005,
that is up to the moment when the decision on the merits of the case
became final.
- The
Court notes that the Constitutional Court took into consideration the
period of eight years and eleven months when the case had been dealt
with by the District Court. It awarded the applicant the equivalent
of EUR 480 as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
As regards the relevant period examined by the Constitutional Court,
this amount cannot be considered to have provided adequate and
sufficient redress to the applicant in view of the Court's
established case-law (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no.
36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006-..., and Cocchiarella v.
Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 65-107, ECHR 2006-...).
- The
Court thus concludes that the applicant did not lose his status as a
victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see, for
example, Bič v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, § 37, 4
November 2008). In view of the above, it does not consider the
argument that the courts actively dealt with the case in the
subsequent period sufficient to deprive the applicant of his status
as a victim in respect of the period of the proceedings before the
Constitutional Court's judgment.
- The
Court notes that the application 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 view expressed by
the Constitutional Court and considers that the length of the
proceedings up to the date of the Constitutional Court's judgment was
excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time”
requirement. It finds no further substantial delays in the period
after the Constitutional Court's judgment.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. 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 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- The
Court considers that it should award the full sum claimed.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
Registry invited the applicant to submit his claims for just
satisfaction together with the supporting documents by 17 August
2007. Within the given time-limit the applicant, represented by a
lawyer, claimed, without providing any supporting documents, 15 % of
the Court's award in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 11 October
2007 the applicant's lawyer submitted a copy of the contract pursuant
to which the applicant agreed to pay to the lawyer 15 % of the amount
awarded by the Court.
- The
Government argued that the amount was overstated and that the
applicant had not submitted the relevant supporting documents on
time.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of the costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, having regard to the
failure to substantiate his claim within the time-limit set and thus
to comply with the terms of Rule 60 § 2 of the Rules of Court,
the Court makes no award under this head.
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 application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 4,000 (four
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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 June 2009, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
