THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MAXIAN AND MAXIANOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA

(Application no. 43168/11)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

7 January 2014

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
 
In the case of Maxian and Maxianová v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Luis López Guerra, President,
	Ján Šikuta,
	Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 43168/11) 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 two Slovak nationals, Mr Ján Maxian and Ms Iveta Maxianová (“the applicants”), on 6 July 2011.
2.  The applicants were represented by Ms M. Beňová, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
 3.  On 12 July 2012 the application was communicated 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
4.  The applicants are spouses. They were born in 1949 and 1965 respectively and live in Vienna, Austria.
5.  On 13 April 2005 the applicants brought an action seeking dissolution of joint ownership of a real estate before the Dunajská Streda District Court (file no. 9C 70/2005).
6.  On 6 September 2006, at its fifth hearing, the District Court delivered a judgment. The defendant appealed. The applicants requested the District Court to give a supplementary judgment. On 9 November 2006 the case file was submitted to the Trnava Regional Court.
7.  On 20 March 2007 the Regional Court returned the case file to the first-instance court as incomplete. On 11 September 2007 the District Court gave a supplementary judgment and on 11 January 2008 the case file was again submitted to the Regional Court.
8.  In 2008 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings for two months pending the outcome of inheritance proceedings after the defendant had died.
9.  On 31 March 2009 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a new determination.
10.  On 20 August 2010 the applicants complained before the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings before the District Court.
11.  On 4 October 2010 the District Court approved the friendly settlement of the case reached between the parties. This decision became final on 30 October 2010.
12. On 24 November 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the applicants’ complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded (case no. I. ÚS 455/2010). It held that there had been no significant delays in the proceedings before the District Court in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalent.
THE LAW
I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
13.  The applicants 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
14.  The Government referred to the Constitutional Court’s finding that there had been no violation of the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time. In their submission, the applicants’ complaint was therefore manifestly ill-founded.
15.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 13 April 2005 when the applicants filed their action and ended on 30 October 2010 with the final decision of the District Court. It thus lasted more than five years and four months for two levels of jurisdiction. The proceedings before the District Court, against which the applicants exclusively directed their constitutional complaint, alone lasted more than three years and nine months.
16.  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.
B.  Merits
17.  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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
18.  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).
19.  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. Even if it takes exclusively into consideration the length of the proceedings before the District Court, the Court cannot accept their duration as being justified. 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.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
20.  The applicants complained that the lenghty domestic proceedings also amounted to a violation of their rights under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
21.  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.
22.  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
23.  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
24.  The applicants claimed jointly 24,233.28 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
25.  The Government contested these claims.
26.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it awards the applicants EUR 1,800 jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B.  Costs and expenses
27.  Submitting documentary evidence, the applicants also claimed EUR 5,710.76 for the costs and expenses incurred before ordinary domestic courts and EUR 413.58 for those incurred before the Constitutional Court. As for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court, the applicants claimed EUR 441 for translation costs and, as regards legal fees, a sum amounting to twenty percent of the sum awarded by the Court in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
28.  The Government contested all these claims apart from translation costs.
29.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the ordinary domestic proceedings and considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,200 jointly for the proceedings before the Constitutional Court and before the Court.
C.  Default interest
30.  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,
1.  Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts:
(i)  EUR 1,800 (one thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)  EUR 1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, 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;

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 January 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Marialena Tsirli	Luis López Guerra
	Deputy Registrar	President