LADUNA v. SLOVAKIA - 11686/10 [2012] ECHR 914 (31 May 2012)

    BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

    European Court of Human Rights
    You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> LADUNA v. SLOVAKIA - 11686/10 [2012] ECHR 914 (31 May 2012)
    URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/914.html
    Cite as: [2012] ECHR 914

    [New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]





    THIRD SECTION







    CASE OF LADUNA v. SLOVAKIA


    (Application no. 11686/10)











    JUDGMENT





    STRASBOURG


    31 May 2012



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

    In the case of Laduna 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

  1. The case originated in an application (no. 11686/10) 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 Peter Laduna (“the applicant”), on 10 April 2007.

  2. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.

  3. On 30 August 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.

    4. THE FACTS

    THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

  4. The applicant was born in 1973. He is serving a prison term in Ilava.

    5. A.  Proceedings file no. 16 C 7/2005 before the Nitra District Court

    1.  Proceedings before the civil courts

  5. On 23 May 2003 the applicant lodged a civil action for damages against the Nitra Regional Police Authority in respect of events surrounding his deprivation of liberty.

  6. On 12 December 2003 the Nitra District Court rejected the applicant’s claim. The Nitra Regional Court quashed the decision as being erroneous on 31 May 2004.

  7. On 26 October 2004 the case was assigned to a different judge of the Nitra District Court. On 5 April 2005 that court dismissed the applicant’s request for waiver of court fees. On 31 May 2005 the Regional Court quashed that decision as being incorrect.

  8. On 6 December 2005 the case was assigned to a different District Court judge as the judge dealing with the case had requested her exclusion. In the first half of 2006 the District Court obtained information about the applicant’s financial situation. In September 2006 it received factual information from the Ministry of the Interior.

  9. On 2 May 2007 the District Court refused to appoint a lawyer to represent the applicant. On 28 August 2007 the Regional Court quashed that decision holding that the applicant had been denied his right of access to a court. The file was returned to the District Court on 6 December 2007. It appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant on 7 December 2007.

  10. Between May and July 2008 the District Court asked the applicant’s lawyer to complete the action. The modified action was submitted on 8 August 2008.

  11. On 20 November 2008 the file was transmitted to the Piešťany District Court with a request to hear the applicant in prison. The file was returned to the Nitra District Court on 5 August 2009 with the explanation that the applicant insisted on being heard by the court dealing with his claim.

  12. In the meantime, on 6 March 2009, the Nitra District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the appointment of a different lawyer to represent him. The Regional Court upheld that decision on 30 April 2009.

  13. As the applicant had filed a criminal complaint against the lawyer, the District Court asked the Bar Association for further information on 25 November 2009. On 5 February 2010 it revoked the lawyer’s appointment and appointed the Legal Aid Centre in Bratislava to represent the applicant. On 16 April 2010 the Legal Aid Centre informed the District Court that the applicant had refused communicating with its lawyers. The applicant explained that he disagreed to a prison officer being present during the conversation. In view of further information submitted on 7 July 2010, the District Court decided not to revoke the appointment of the above institution on 4 November 2010.

  14. On 3 February 2011 and 12 April 2011 the Legal Aid Centre informed the District Court that the applicant had refused communicating with its lawyers in writing and that he did not wish to be represented by them.

  15. On 11 May 2011 the applicant specified his claim. On 18 July 2011 and 9 October 2011 respectively he informed the court that he did not wish to be represented by the Legal Aid Centre and that he asked for a different representative to be appointed.

  16. The civil proceedings are pending.

    17. 2.  Proceedings before the Constitutional Court

  17. On 12 June 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings before the District Court as being manifestly ill-founded.

  18. On 13 November 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s second complaint about the duration of the proceedings before the District Court.

  19. On 7 December 2011 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the third complaint of the applicant about the duration of the proceedings before the Nitra District Court. It examined the period subsequent to its above decision of 13 November 2009 and held that its duration was principally due to the applicant’s conduct.

    20. B.  Proceedings file no. 17 C 60/2007 before the Nitra District Court

    1.  Proceedings before the civil courts

  20. On 10 December 2003 the applicant lodged an action for damages against the prison administration alleging that prison guards had ill-treated him.

  21. On 21 April 2004 the District Court declared it inadmissible as being unclear. The Nitra Regional Court quashed the decision on 12 October 2004 as being erroneous.

  22. On 10 January 2005 the applicant asked for exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee. On 1 April 2005 he informed the District Court, in reply to the request for a form concerning his financial situation, that he had filed his case with the European Court. He did not trust the State organs and did not intend to proceed with the case. The District Court enquired about the applicant’s financial situation and received replies from various State organs. On 21 July 2005 it dismissed the request for waiver of court fees. The decision was quashed by the Regional Court on 28 October 2005 on the ground that the District Court had failed to establish all relevant facts and had failed to give relevant reasons for its conclusion. In January 2006 the District Court attempted to have the Regional Court’s decision served, but it was informed that the applicant had been moved to a different prison.

  23. In April 2007 the District Court asked the applicant whether he wished to pursue his claim in view of his above statement of 1 April 2005. On 25 May 2007 and 22 June 2007 the applicant replied that he could not respond without legal assistance. On the latter date he asked the court to appoint a legal-aid lawyer. On 23 October 2007 the District Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer to represent the applicant in the proceedings.

  24. On 3 January 2008 the lawyer confirmed that the applicant wished to pursue his case and clarified that the action had been lodged against the Ministry of Justice.

  25. In January 2008 the applicant complained to the District Court about the lawyer’s conduct, claiming that the lawyer had acted without the applicant’s consent and that he had not followed the applicant’s instructions. On 8 August 2008 the lawyer modified the applicant’s claim.

  26. On 29 September 2008 the applicant asked for a different lawyer to be appointed to represent him. The District Court dismissed that request on 6 March 2009. On 30 April 2009 the Nitra Regional Court upheld the first instance decision.

  27. As the applicant had filed a criminal complaint against the lawyer, the District Court asked the Bar Association for further information on 25 November 2009. On 5 February 2010 it revoked the lawyer’s appointment and appointed the Legal Aid Centre in Bratislava to represent the applicant. On 16 April 2010 the latter informed the District Court that the applicant had refused to speak to its lawyers during their visit in prison. In view of further information submitted on 7 July 2010 the District Court decided not to revoke the appointment of the above institution on 4 November 2010.

  28. On 3 February 2011 and 12 April 2011 the Legal Aid Centre informed the court that the applicant had objected to being represented by it.

  29. In May 2011 the applicant specified his claim. On 18 July 2011 and 9 October 2011 respectively he informed the court that he did not wish to be represented by the Legal Aid Centre and that he asked for a different representative to be appointed.

  30. The civil proceedings are pending.

    31. 2.  Proceedings before the Constitutional Court

  31. On 12 June 2008 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint about the length of the District Court’s proceedings as being manifestly ill-founded. It observed that the applicant had not sufficiently cooperated with the District Court and that the latter had actively dealt with the applicant’s numerous submissions and procedural requests. The court had also sent several requests to a number of State organs in order to establish the applicant’s financial situation. Having regard to the circumstances of the case it concluded that there had been no unreasonable delays attributable to the District Court.

  32. On 13 November 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s second complaint about the length of the proceedings before the District Court as being manifestly ill-founded.

  33. On 7 December 2011 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the third complaint of the applicant about the duration of the proceedings before the Nitra District Court. It examined the period subsequent to its above decision of 13 November 2009 and held that its duration was principally due to the applicant’s conduct.

    34. C.  Proceedings file no. 18 C 120/2003 before the Nitra District Court

  34. On 17 December 2002 a telephone company sued the applicant for a sum of money. The Nitra District Court issued a payment order which was quashed following the applicant’s objection. In a judgment of 14 October 2003 District Court ordered the applicant to pay a sum to the plaintiff.

  35. On 27 February 2004 the Nitra Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment.

  36. Subsequently the District Court appointed a lawyer to the applicant. It scheduled two hearings in October 2004. In January 2005 the applicant was heard in prison. On 3 May 2005 the District Court delivered its second judgment ordering the applicant to pay a sum to the plaintiff.

  37. On 10 November 2006 the Regional Court confirmed the first instance judgment in part. It ordered the District Court to determine the outstanding part of the claim. The court of appeal dealt with the case for sixteen months, the file was returned to the District Court on 26 January 2007.

  38. Between 27 March 2007 and 3 July 2008 the District Court scheduled six hearings, arranged for the applicant to be heard in prison and obtained additional evidence and information. On the latter date it determined the outstanding sum due by the applicant.

  39. On 18 September 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the duration of the proceedings before the Nitra District Court which had by then lasted three and a half years.

  40. On 9 October 2008 the Nitra Regional Court modified the District Court’s judgment of 3 July 2008. It became final on 9 February 2009. The Regional Court further quashed the decision on the costs and returned that aspect of the case at first instance. The District Court re-determined the costs and lawyer’s fees on 24 April 2009. On 30 September 2009 the Regional Court quashed that decision. The District Court gave the final decision on the issue on 22 April 2010.

    41. THE LAW

    I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

  41. The applicant complained that the length of the above three sets of proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that his right to a fair hearing by a tribunal had been breached in the context of those proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in its relevant parts reads as follows:

    42. “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal ...”

    A.  As regards the duration of the proceedings

    1.  Proceedings file no. 16 C 7/2005 before the Nitra District Court

    (a)  Admissibility

  42. The Government, with reference to the Constitutional Court’s decisions, argued that this part of the application was manifestly ill founded.

  43. The period to be taken into consideration began on 23 May 2003 and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted eight years and more than ten months. Courts at two levels of jurisdiction have dealt with the case.

  44. The Court notes that this complaint 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.

    45. (b)  Merits

  45. 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).

  46. 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).

  47. 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. It is relevant that the merits of the case still remain to be determined by the first instance court which failed to proceed in an appropriate manner in particular between 23 May 2003 and 7 December 2007. During that period it dealt with various procedural aspects of the case, but the Regional Court quashed three of its decisions as being inappropriate. The Court further finds that the duration of the proceedings during the subsequent period is partly due also to the applicant’s conduct. However, this does not absolve the courts involved from the obligation to ensure compliance with the requirement of Article 6 § 1 concerning reasonable time.

  48. 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.

  49. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.

    50. 2.  Proceedings file no. 17 C 60/2007 before the Nitra District Court

    (a)  Admissibility

  50. The Government, with reference to the Constitutional Court’s decisions, argued that this complaint was manifestly ill-founded.

  51. The period to be taken into consideration began on 10 December 2003 and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted eight years and more than four months. Courts at two levels of jurisdiction dealt with the case during that period.

  52. The Court notes that this complaint 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.

    53. (b)  Merits

  53. While agreeing with the Constitutional Court that the applicant had contributed to the overall duration of the proceedings to a substantial extent, the Court considers that certain delays occurred which are to be imputed to the first-instance court. In particular, on 12 October 2004 the Regional Court returned the case at first-instance concluding that the District Court had proceeded erroneously. Subsequently thirty-three months were needed to determine whether the applicant should be exempted from the obligation to pay court fees and to appoint a lawyer to represent him.

  54. Having regard to all the material submitted to it and to its case-law on the subject, the Court therefore considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

  55. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.

    56. 3.  Proceedings file no. 18 C 120/2003 before the Nitra District Court

    Admissibility

  56. The Court notes that before the Constitutional Court the applicant exclusively complained about delays in the proceedings before the Nitra District Court. At the time of the Constitutional Court’s decision the relevant period had lasted three and a half years.

  57. In view of the documents before it, the Court can accept the Constitutional Court’s conclusion that the period under the latter’s examination had not lasted an excessively long time. In these circumstances, the applicant was required to again seek redress in respect of any delays in the proceedings which he considered to have arisen in the subsequent period (see also Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007, with further references).

  58. It follows that this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention as being manifestly ill-founded and for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

    59. B.  Alleged unfairness of the proceedings

    Admissibility

  59. The Court has also examined the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 about alleged unfairness of the above civil proceedings including the complaint that the District Court and the Constitutional Court had failed to proceed with his submissions in an appropriate manner. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

  60. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

    61. II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

  61. The applicant further complained that he had no effective remedy at his disposal in respect of his complaints under Article 6 § 1. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention which provides as follows:

    62. “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.”

    Admissibility

  62. The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at the national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms. Its effect is to require the provision of a domestic remedy capable of dealing with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention and of granting appropriate relief (see, amongst other authorities, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 95, Reports 1996-VI). The word “remedy” within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, mutatis mutandis, Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-I).

  63. The complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution to the Constitutional Court is in principle considered “effective” in the Convention sense in respect of excessive length of proceedings (see, for example, Andrášik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos. 57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01 and 60226/00, ECHR 2002 IX and Obluk v. Slovakia, no. 69484/01, § 60, 20 June 2006).

  64. Although the applicant’s constitutional complaints did not provide him with any redress as regards the proceedings the duration of which the Court found to be contrary to Article 6 § 1, the Court does not find enough grounds in this case for holding the constitutional remedy to be ineffective within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention (see also 35316/05 Töviš v. Slovakia (dec.), 4 December 2007 and, to the contrary, A.R., spol. s r.o. v. Slovakia, no. 13960/06, §§ 59-60, 9 February 2010).

  65. The Court has declared inadmissible the applicant’s remaining complaints. For similar reasons, he did not have an “arguable claim” (see, for example, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131) and Article 13 of the Convention is therefore inapplicable to them.

  66. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

    67. III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

  67. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

    68. “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

  68. The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non pecuniary damage.

  69. The Government contested the claim.

  70. The Court awards the applicant EUR 6,800 in respect of non pecuniary damage.

    71. B.  Costs and expenses

  71. The applicant also claimed EUR 100 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. That sum concerned postage and other expenses related to his correspondence with the authorities concerned.

  72. The Government objected to the claim as being unsubstantiated.

  73. The documents before the Court indicate that the applicant incurred costs while attempting to obtain redress in respect of the duration of the proceedings in issue at national level and while pursuing his application. The Court awards him EUR 30 under this head.

    74. C.  Default interest

  74. 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.

    75. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

  75. Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings files no. 16 C 7/2005 and no. 17 C 60/2007 before the Nitra District Court admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;


  76. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the duration of the two sets of proceedings referred to in point 1 above;


  77. Holds

    78. (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts:

    (i)  EUR 6,800 (six thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

    (ii)  EUR 30 (thirty 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;


  78. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

    79. 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

     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/914.html