FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF ČECHOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA

(Application no. 33378/06)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

5 October 2010

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Čechová v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Giovanni Bonello, President,
	Lech Garlicki,
	Ján Šikuta, judges,
and Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 September 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 33378/06) 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, Ms Tatiana Čechová (“the applicant”), on 8 August 2006.
2.  The applicant was represented by Mr M. Mandzák, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
3.  On 2 April 2008 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3). In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application is assigned to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Košice.
5.  On 13 January 2000 the applicant's former husband lodged an action against the applicant for distribution of matrimonial property.
6.  On 10 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice II District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded the applicant the equivalent of 876 euros (at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ordered the District Court to proceed and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
7.  On 15 March 2006 it rejected the applicant's fresh complaint about the length of these proceedings as being manifestly ill-founded.
8.  On 8 December 2009 the District Court delivered a judgment in the case. The applicant appealed and the proceedings are still pending.
THE LAW
I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
9.  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
10.  The Government agreed with the Constitutional Court's findings of 2004 and 2006 and argued that the applicant should have lodged a fresh complaint in respect of the subsequent period.
11.  The applicant reiterated her complaint.
12.  At the time of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 2004 the proceedings had lasted four years and five months at one level of jurisdiction. They are still pending. In view of its established case‑law (see  (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007), 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
13.  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).
14.  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).
15.  Having examined all the materials submitted to it and having regard to its case‑law on the subject, the Court concurs with the view expressed by the Constitutional Court on 10 June 2004 that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. It finds further delays in the period after that judgment.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.

II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16.  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.”
17.  In the application form submitted on 8 August 2006 the applicant claimed, provisionally, EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses.
18.  On 1 September 2008, after the application had been communicated to the respondent Government and the parties informed that the admissibility and merits of the case would be examined at the same time, the Court invited the applicant to submit her claims for just satisfaction by 10 October 2008. The relevant part of the Registry's letter reads as follows:
“With regard to just-satisfaction claims, I would draw your attention to Rule 60 and would remind you that failure to submit within the time allowed quantified claims, together with the required supporting documents, entails the consequence that the Chamber will either make no award of just satisfaction or else reject the claim in part. This applies even if the applicant has indicated her wishes concerning just satisfaction at an earlier stage of the proceedings.”
19.  The applicant did not submit any such claims within the time‑limit fixed by the Court. Accordingly, the Court makes no award under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, A. R., spol. s r. o. v. Slovakia, no. 13960/06, §§ 62-65, 9 February 2010, with further references).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1.  Declares the application admissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 October 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
		Giovanni Bonello
	Deputy 	President