[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF BACZOVÁ v.
SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 18926/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 October 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Baczová v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Ján
Šikuta,
Vincent Anthony de Gaetano, judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 28 September 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 18926/07) 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, Ms RuZena Baczová (“the applicant”),
on 26 April 2007.
- The
Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
- On
7 May 2009 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol no. 14,
the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Košice.
A. Proceedings concerning the applicant's action of 2001
- On
6 March 2001 the applicant lodged a civil action against several
individuals and State organs, requesting that the Košice II
District Court declare null and void a contract by which she had
transferred her title to a flat to two of the defendants. She also
asked the court to order another defendant to vacate the flat and
leave it at the applicant's disposal.
- The
file was transferred to the Košice I District Court on
19 April 2001 for reasons of jurisdiction.
- On
10 February 2003 she complained to the President of the Košice
I District Court about the length of the proceedings.
- On
3 July 2003 the District Court admitted another defendant to the
proceedings. The latter appealed and the file was transferred to the
Košice Regional Court.
- On
22 September 2003 the applicant complained to the President of the
Regional Court about the length of the proceedings.
- On
7 October 2003 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 3 July
2003.
- On
25 April 2005 the District Court found in the applicant's favour. It
discontinued the proceedings in respect of two State organs.
Following an appeal, the case was transferred to the Regional Court
on 25 October 2005.
- On
19 September 2006 the applicant inquired about any obstacles
preventing the Regional Court from dealing with the case.
- On
9 October 2010 she complained to the President of the Regional Court
about the length of the proceedings.
- On
31 May 2007 the Regional Court quashed the judgment, except of the
part concerning the discontinuation of the proceedings, and remitted
the case to the District Court.
- On
4 May 2009 the District Court found against the applicant.
- The
applicant appealed and the proceedings are still pending.
B. Constitutional proceedings
- On
23 December 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court
about the overall length of proceedings.
- On
7 July 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's length
of proceedings complaint inadmissible. It held that the part of the
complaint concerning the proceedings before the District Court was
manifestly ill-founded, as this period of the proceedings had already
ended and the District Court could no longer violate Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalent.
- It
expressed the view that the applicant had not exhausted the available
domestic remedies in respect of the period of the proceedings before
the Regional Court, as she had not lodged a complaint of their length
to the President of the Regional Court. The decision stated that the
applicant's complaint of 22 September 2003 could not be considered as
such remedy because it had been lodged during another stage of the
proceedings, when the Regional Court was examining the first-instance
decision to admit another defendant to the proceedings.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. In
substance she invoked 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 argued that the applicant had not sought redress before
the Constitutional Court in accordance with the applicable formal
requirements and the Constitutional Court's practice. As regards the
first instance proceedings, they noted that the applicant had
complained about this phase when the court of appeal had already been
dealing with the case. They noted that it was the Constitutional
Court's practice to examine the length of proceedings complaints only
when the proceedings were still pending before the authority liable
for the alleged violation at the moment when the complaint was lodged
with the Constitutional Court, and to declare inadmissible the
complaints which were introduced after the proceedings complained of
had been concluded. They further stated that such practice had also
been accepted by the Court (see also Obluk v. Slovakia, no.
69484/01, §§ 61-62, 20 June 2006 and Mazurek v. Slovakia
(dec.), no. 16970/05, 3 March 2009).
- As
regards the phase of the proceedings before the Regional Court, they
observed that the applicant had not used the available remedies, that
is a complaint with the President of the Regional Court. The
applicant's complaint of 2003 had been lodged at a different stage of
decision-making process.
- The
applicant reiterated her complaint.
- The
Court observes that the applicant, contrary to the case of Mazurek,
cited above, formulated her constitutional complaint in a manner
permitting the Constitutional Court to examine the overall duration
of the proceedings (see Obluk, cited above). Additionally, at
the time of the lodging of her constitutional complaint the
proceedings had not yet been concluded by a final decision (see, a
contrario, Mazurek, cited above). The Constitutional Court
thus could have addressed their overall length, in line with the
Court's approach when examining similar cases (see SOFTEL, spol. s
r. o. v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 32836/06, § 21,
16 December 2008). In a number of cases the Constitutional
Court, indeed, adopted such approach (see also Bako v. Slovakia
(dec.), no. 60227/00, 15 March 2005; Šedý
v. Slovakia, no. 72237/01, §§ 66-67, 19
December 2006; and SOFTEL, spol. s r. o. v. Slovakia (no. 1),
no. 32427/06, § 8, 16 December 2008). However, in the
present case it excluded from its review a substantial phase of the
proceedings on the ground that the District Court was no longer
dealing with the case.
- In
view of the above, the Court does not accept the Government's
argument that the applicant should have separately complained before
the Constitutional Court of the individual parts of the proceedings
in her case at the time when they were pending before each of the
authorities involved (see A. R., spol. s r. o. v. Slovakia,
no. 13960/06, §§ 35-38, 9 February 2010).
- The
Court further observes that the applicant complained about the
Regional Court's inactivity already in 2003. It notes that at that
time the Regional Court was examining an appeal lodged by one of the
defendants against the District Court's decision to admit another
defendant to the proceedings. It thus observes that the applicant
complained about the Regional Court's inactivity at the time when the
latter was dealing with the case. In view of the above it does not
accept the Government's argument that this complaint could not be
taken into account because it was lodged at a different stage of the
proceedings.
- The
Government's objections must therefore be dismissed.
- The
Court observes that at the time of the Constitutional Court's
decision the civil proceedings had been pending for five years and
four months at two levels of jurisdiction. They are still pending.
Their overall duration is thus approximately nine years and a half.
- It
follows that this part of the application cannot be rejected for
non exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of
Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and it 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 materials 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.
II. ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- Even
though the applicant did not invoke Article 13 of the
Convention, the Court considers it appropriate to examine whether the
applicant had at her disposal an effective remedy for her length of
proceedings complaint, as required by that provision. Article 13
reads:
“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's constitutional complaint was
capable of leading to an examination of the overall length of the
proceedings, had the applicant lodged it in accordance with the
formal requirements.
- The
applicant did not express an opinion on the matter.
- The
Court notes that this part of 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.
Merits
- The
Court takes the view that the remedy under Article 127 of the
Constitution is likely to provide appropriate and sufficient redress
to applicants where it allows for examination of the entire duration
of the proceedings complained of.
- Since
the applicant in the present case complained to the Constitutional
Court about the overall duration of the proceedings and since, unlike
in other decisions, the Constitutional Court excluded from its review
their substantial part, the Court considers that the applicant's
right to an effective remedy has not been respected (see A. R.,
spol. s r. o. v. Slovakia, no. 13960/06, §§ 59-60,
9 February 2010).
There
has therefore been a violation of Article 13 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
- Without
claiming any specific amount the applicant requested “damages
for all those years”.
- The
Government claimed that there was no causal link between the
violation alleged and the pecuniary damage claimed. They left the
issue of non-pecuniary damage to the Court's discretion.
- Even
in the absence of quantification, the Court accepts that the
applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage which would not have been
sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation. Making its
assessment on an equitable basis and having regard to the
circumstances of the case, the Court awards the applicant EUR 7,200.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award her any sum 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 that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months EUR
7,200 (seven thousand two hundred 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 October 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Lech Garlicki Deputy Registrar President
