[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF URÍK v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 7408/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21
December 2010
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 Urík v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša
Vučinić,
Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 30 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 7408/05) 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 Ladislav Urík (“the applicant”),
on 7 February 2005.
- The
applicant was initially represented by Mr L. Potocký and,
subsequently, by Mr Š. Bucha, lawyers practising in Zilina.
The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M.
Pirošíková.
- On
12 March 2009 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 § 1).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Plevník - Drienové.
A. Inheritance proceedings before the State Notary in
PovaZská Bystrica in case no. D186/61, subsequently before the
PovaZská Bystrica District Court in cases nos. D1133/98, Dnot
652/96
- Inheritance
proceedings in respect of the applicant’s father’s estate
were concluded by a decision of 31 July 1962. The stamp on that
decision indicates that it became final on 27 October 1962.
- On
17 February 1995 the Banská Bystrica
Regional Court, upon the appeal of an heir lodged on 15
October 1962, quashed the above decision on the ground that it (i)
had been issued without sufficient establishment of the facts and
(ii) could not be reviewed for lack of reasons. On 6 March 1995 the
case file was remitted for further examination to the PovaZská
Bystrica District Court which had taken over similar cases in the
meantime.
- On
13 July 1998 the district court discontinued the proceedings since
the matter at issue was a res iudicata. The district court
stated that the decision of the State Notary of 31 July 1962 had
become final on 27 October 1962 and that no new assets had been
found. On 31 May 1999 the Trenčín Regional Court quashed
the decision of 13 July 1998 and remitted the case file for further
examination to the first-instance. It reasoned that the decision
of the State Notary of 31 July 1962 had been quashed by the Banská
Bystrica Regional Court on 17 February 1995 and the case file had
been remitted for further examination. On 25 May 2000 the Supreme
Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law lodged
against the decision of the Trenčín Regional Court of 31
May 1999.
- On
25 March 2004 the district court stayed the inheritance proceedings
pending the outcome of another set of civil proceedings (file no. 6 C
156/04, see below). On 15 July and 18 November 2004 the district
court corrected errors in its decision. The district court decided on
the applicant’s appeal in its decision of 5 May 2005.
The decision to stay the inheritance proceedings became final on 3
June 2005.
- In
the subsequent period, the district court repeatedly verified whether
the related civil proceedings had ended. The inheritance proceedings
are still stayed.
B. Civil proceedings case no. 6 C 156/04
- On
18 March 2010 the PovaZská Bystrica
District Court delivered a judgment. Those proceedings are now
pending before the appellate court.
C. Civil proceedings case no. 3 C 845/01
- On
7 March 2002 the PovaZská Bystrica District
Court dismissed the applicant’s claim to have a donation
contract declared null and void. On 22 April 2003 the Trenčín
Regional Court confirmed the judgment.
D. Constitutional proceedings
1. Case
no. III. ÚS 15/06
- On
10 May 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the PovaZská
Bystrica District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a
hearing without unjustified delay in proceedings nos. D1133/98, Dnot
652/96.
- The
Constitutional Court awarded 60,000 Slovakian korunas to the
applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
ordered reimbursement of the applicant’s legal costs. It did
not order the district court to avoid further delays as the
inheritance proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of related
civil proceedings.
- The Constitutional Court noted that (i) it had
jurisdiction to examine the duration of the proceedings only as from
15 February 1993 and (ii) until 6 March 1995 the district court
had correctly assumed that the inheritance proceedings had been
concluded by a final decision. Therefore, it examined the delays
which had occurred in the proceedings only after 6 March 1995. It
further stated that even after that date the proceedings had lasted
nine years and the district court had been responsible for four years
and nine months of delays.
2. Case
no. Rvp 1289/04
- A
Constitutional Court judge informed the applicant in a letter of
24 August 2004 that his submission concerning the proceedings
before the PovaZská Bystrica District Court in case no. 3 C
845/01 did not comply with the formal
requirements for proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
3. Case
no. III. ÚS
84/2010
16. On
18 February 2010 the Constitutional
Court rejected the applicant’s complaint about the length of
unspecified proceedings before the PovaZská Bystrica District
and Regional Court and the State Notary as falling short of the
statutory requirements.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The applicant complained about the course and outcome
of the above sets of proceedings. He further
alleged that the length of the inheritance proceedings and of the
related civil proceedings (file no. 6 C 156/04) had been incompatible
with the “reasonable time” requirement. He relied on
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing
within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. Admissibility
1. Inheritance proceedings before the State Notary in
PovaZská Bystrica in case no. D186/61, subsequently before the
PovaZská Bystrica District Court in cases nos. D1133/98, Dnot
652/96
(a) Alleged length of the inheritance
proceedings
- The
Government admitted that a stamp on the State Notary’s decision
of 31 July 1962 had indicated that it had become final on 27 October
1962. However, on 17 February 1995, the regional court, upon appeal
lodged by one party to the proceedings on 15 October 1962, quashed
the decision and remitted the case to the district court for further
examination. Therefore, the Government stated that the decision of 31
July 1962 had not become final in 1962. They further argued that the
Constitutional Court correctly examined only the period after 6 March
1995 when the proceedings had been pending before the district court
upon return of the case file from the regional court. They stated
that until that date the district court had correctly assumed that
the decision of 31 July 1962 had become final.
- The
Government expressed the view 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 argued that the Constitutional Court had
expressly acknowledged such a violation and had awarded the applicant
sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage suffered. The
applicant should have lodged a fresh constitutional complaint in
respect of the subsequent period in the inheritance proceedings as
well as in respect of the related civil proceedings (file no. 6 C
156/04).
- The applicant contested the above arguments and stated
that he had used the remedies available and that he was still a
victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable
time.
- The
Court notes that it is not clear from the parties’ submissions
whether it was the State Notary, the PovaZská Bystrica
District Court or the Banská Bystrica Regional Court which
kept the appeal lodged by an heir for nearly thirty-three years. The
Court has only limited power to examine alleged errors of facts or
law imputed to the national courts. However, it is to be noted that
on 17 February 1995 the Banská
Bystrica Regional Court, upon appeal lodged on 15 October 1962,
quashed the decision of 31 July 1962. The first-instance decision had
thus not become final in 1962 as indicated by the stamp. This fact
cannot be imputed to the applicant.
22. Accordingly, the period to be taken into consideration began
on 18 March 1992, when the recognition by the former Czech and
Slovak Federal Republic, to which Slovakia is one of the successor
States, of the right of individual petition took effect. However, in
assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that
date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time.
- The
Court finds that the Constitutional Court, by reviewing only the
period after 6 March 1995, when the case file had been returned from
the regional court, had refused to examine the duration of the entire
relevant period which the Court has jurisdiction to examine.
- In
these circumstances, the manner in which the applicant’s
complaint was dealt with by the Constitutional Court failed to meet
the purpose of protection of his right under Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time, as interpreted
and applied by the Court.
- The
period in question ended on 3 June 2005 when the inheritance
proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the related civil
proceedings.
- The
period under consideration thus lasted 13 years and more than
2 months at three levels of jurisdiction.
- The
Court considers, in the light of the criteria established by its
case-law on the question of “reasonable time”, and having
regard to all the material in its possession, that this complaint is
not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3
of the Convention. There are no other grounds for its
inadmissibility. It must therefore be declared admissible.
(b) Alleged unfairness of the proceedings
- The applicant complained that
the manner, in which the domestic courts had dealt with the case, was
contrary to his right to a fair hearing guaranteed under Article 6 §
1 of the Convention.
- The Court notes that the inheritance proceedings have
been stayed pending the outcome of related civil proceedings. The
complaint of their alleged unfairness is therefore premature.
- It follows that this complaint must be rejected under
Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies.
2. Civil proceedings case no. 6 C 156/04 and case no. 3
C 845/01
- The applicant failed to show that he had raised the
complaints now made to the Court in respect of the above two sets of
proceedings in a complaint to the Constitutional Court under Article
127 of the Constitution, lodged in accordance with the applicable
statutory requirements.
- It follows that these complaints must also be rejected
under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
B. Merits
- The
applicant argued that the inheritance proceedings had lasted an
unreasonably long time.
- The
Government pointed to the Constitutional Court’s finding and
admitted that the complaint about the length of the proceedings was
not manifestly ill-founded.
- 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, the Court considers,
having regard to its case-law on the subject 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- On
23 June 2010 the applicant’s representative submitted
additional observations which had not been solicited by the Court. In
that context, he alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
- However, in the light of all the
materials in its possession, and to the extent that these complaints
are substantiated and fall within its competence, the Court finds
that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights
guaranteed under the Convention or its Protocols.
- 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.”
A. Damage
- Within
the time-limit set for that purpose and without claiming any specific
amount, the applicant argued that he had suffered
non-pecuniary damage. He stated that the amount awarded by the
Constitutional Court was not sufficient.
- The
Government requested the Court to award the applicant compensation
for non-pecuniary damage to the extent justified and to take into
account the just satisfaction already granted to him by the
Constitutional Court.
- 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 and the award made by the Constitutional
Court, the Court awards the applicant EUR 5,100 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- Within
the time-limit set for that purpose the applicant also claimed EUR
1,927 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts
and for those incurred before the Court.
- The
Government had no objection against the award of a demonstrably
and necessarily incurred sum.
- 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 and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, the Court found a
violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a
reasonable time. The documents submitted indicate that the costs and
expenses which the applicant actually and necessarily incurred in
that respect in the proceedings before the Court amount to EUR 96.
Therefore, regard being had to the above criteria, the Court awards
the applicant that sum.
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 complaint under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the inheritance
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 applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:
(i)
EUR 5,100 (five thousand one hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 96 (ninety-six euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the
applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 December 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
