[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF FRANC v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 20986/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
31 May
2012
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Franc v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Ineta Ziemele, President,
Ján
Šikuta,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and
Marialena Tsirli, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 10 May 2012,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 20986/10) 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 Jaroslav Franc (“the applicant”), on
29 March 2010.
2. The
applicant was represented by Ms I. Rajtáková, a lawyer
practising in Košice. The Government of the
Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
- On
15 September 2011 the
application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Košice.
- On
13 September 1999 the applicant lodged an action with the Košice
I District Court in which he claimed distribution of
marital property.
- On
3 November 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the District
Court had breached the applicant’s right to a hearing within a
reasonable time. It granted 60,000 Slovak korunas (that sum was
equivalent to 1,650 euros (EUR) at that time) to the applicant
as just satisfaction, ordered the District Court to avoid further
delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s
costs.
- On
20 January 2010 the Constitutional Court found that the District
Court had again breached the applicant’s right to a hearing
within a reasonable time in the period subsequent to the first
judgment of the Constitutional Court. It granted the applicant EUR
1,500 as just satisfaction and ordered the District Court to
reimburse the applicant’s costs. The Constitutional Court
confirmed the validity of its order of 3 November 2006 that further
delays in the proceedings should be avoided.
- On
10 March 2010 the District Court heard an expert. On 15 April 2010 it
asked a different expert for additional opinion. It was submitted on
11 October 2010. Between 20 April 2011 and 19 August 2011 the
District Court held three hearings and obtained additional evidence.
On the last mentioned day the court orally delivered a judgment. On
11 November 2011 the judge instructed the District Court’s
registry to have the judgment with reasons served on the parties. On
15 November 2011 the District Court delivered a decision rectifying
the judgment of 19 August 2011.
- According
to the information submitted by the applicant on 24 February
2012 both parties lodged an appeal and the proceedings are pending.
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 ...”
- The
Government admitted that the complaint was not manifestly
ill founded. They argued, however, that the applicant had lost
his status as a victim in view of the Constitutional Court’s
judgments. Furthermore, in respect of the period subsequent to the
second judgment of the Constitutional Court the applicant could have
sought redress by means of a fresh constitutional complaint.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 13 September 1999 and
it exceeded twelve years in respect of the proceedings at
first instance. The proceedings have been pending before the
court of appeal for few months only, and the Court notes that the
applicant has made no complaint in respect of the duration of the
appeal proceedings.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the District Court did not comply with the
Constitutional Court’s order of 3 November 2006 that further
delays in the proceedings should be avoided. The applicant was
therefore obliged to file his second constitutional complaint.
Considering the amount of just satisfaction granted by the two
judgments of the Constitutional Court in the light of its own
practice in similar cases, and the absence of acceleratory
effect of the Constitutional Court’s order, the Court
concludes that the applicant did not obtain appropriate redress
following his two complaints to the Constitutional Court. He was
therefore not required to file a third complaint in respect of the
period subsequent to the second judgment of the Constitutional Court
(see also Becová
v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007,
with further references). Accordingly, the Government’s
objection must be dismissed.
- The
Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) 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, 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, in
line with the Constitutional Court’s conclusions, 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. 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 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested that claim.
- The
Court notes that the applicant obtained partial redress from the
Constitutional Court. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him
EUR 2,500 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- Submitting
supporting documents, the applicant also claimed EUR 773.50 for
the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
- The
Government left the matter to the Court’s discretion.
- The
Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant, who was
represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 750 under this head.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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,
the following amounts:
(i) EUR
2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
750 (seven hundred and fifty 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 31 May 2012, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena Tsirli Ineta Ziemele
Deputy Registrar President
