British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
SEDY v. SLOVAKIA - 72237/01 [2006] ECHR 1118 (19 December 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2006/1118.html
Cite as:
[2006] ECHR 1118
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF ŠEDÝ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 72237/01)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19
December 2006
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 Šedý v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr J.
Casadevall,
Mr M. Pellonpää,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S.
Pavlovschi,
Ms L. Mijović,
Mr J. Šikuta,
judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 28 November 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 72237/01) 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 Mr Oldřich Šedý
(“the applicant”), who has both Slovakian and Czech
nationality, on 9 April 2001.
The
Slovakian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mrs A. Poláčková, their Agent.
On
21 July 2004 the Court
decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of
proceedings to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it was decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of
the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Púchov.
A. Action for protection of personal integrity and
related constitutional complaint
On
17 December 1996 the applicant filed an action against a periodical
with the PovaZská Bystrica District Court (Okresný
súd). He sought protection of his personal integrity under
Articles 11 et seq. of the Civil Code and claimed damages. He
later extended the action to include the editor of the periodical.
The
District Court held hearings on 24 March and 20 August 1997. They
were both adjourned, the former with a view to obtaining evidence,
the latter in order to decide on the applicant's requests for free
legal aid and an exemption from the obligation to pay court fees.
On
25 November 1997 the District Court dismissed the applicant's request
for free legal aid and waiver of court fees. The applicant appealed
and challenged the judge for bias.
A
hearing that was listed for 10 December 1997 had to be adjourned
because the challenge to the judge had not yet been determined.
On
9 April 1998 the Trenčín Regional Court (Krajský
súd) dismissed the challenge of bias.
On
26 October 1998 the District Court held another hearing which had to
be adjourned because the applicant's appeal against the decision of
25 November 1997 concerning court fees and legal aid had still not
been determined. The case file was subsequently transmitted to the
Regional Court for a determination of the appeal.
On
30 April 1999 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 25 November
1997.
On
6 October 1999 the District Court appointed an ex officio
lawyer for the applicant. On 24 November 1999 the lawyer made written
submissions in the applicant's name.
On
12 June 2000 the District Court held a hearing following which, on
the same day, it dismissed the action. The applicant appealed.
On
4 September 2000 the District Court imposed a fine of 5,000 Slovakian
korunas
(SKK) on the applicant for disorderly conduct. The applicant
appealed.
On
14 January 2003 the Regional Court held a hearing following which, on
the same day, it quashed the first-instance judgment and discontinued
the proceedings in respect of the periodical on the ground that the
periodical lacked the legal capacity to be a party to court
proceedings.
On
12 February 2003 the District Court ruled that in so far as the
applicant's claim concerned the remaining defendant, the editor of
the periodical, it would be determined in a separate set of
proceedings which are not the subject-matter of the present
application.
In
the meantime, on 25 July 2002, the applicant lodged a complaint under
Article 127 of the Constitution about the length of the proceedings
with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd).
He directed the complaint against both the District Court and the
Regional Court and claimed just satisfaction in the amount of SKK
50,000.
On
3 October 2002 the Constitutional Court appointed an ex officio
lawyer for the applicant and on 13 November 2002 it declared the
complaint admissible.
On
9 July 2003 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the
applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a
hearing “without unjustified delay” in the phase of the
proceedings before the Regional Court but not before the District
Court. The applicant was awarded SKK 20,000
in just satisfaction and reimbursement of his legal costs.
The
Constitutional Court examined the overall length of the proceedings
from their beginning in 1996 until the decision of 14 January 2003.
However, it divided its examination into two parts, one concerning
the District Court and one concerning the Regional Court. The
Constitutional Court observed that the separate set of proceedings,
which had been opened pursuant to the decision of 12 February 2003 in
respect of the claim against the editor, were not the subject-matter
of the proceedings before it.
It
was further observed that the applicant had contributed to the length
of the proceedings by: supplementing the action several times,
submitting requested documents late, challenging a judge without good
reason and submitting comments in respect of the defendant's
observations in reply to his appeal 22 months after receipt of those
observations.
No
unjustified delays could be imputed to the District Court, in
contrast to the Regional Court which had been inactive without any
acceptable explanation for more than 22 months.
As
for the amount of just satisfaction, the Constitutional Court took
into account the applicant's contribution to the length of the
proceedings.
B. Action against a housing co-operative and related
constitutional complaint
On
3 August 1998 the applicant brought an action against a housing
co-operative in the PovaZská Bystrica District Court. He
claimed a sum of money which, in his view, he had overpaid as rent.
The
applicant challenged all the judges of the PovaZská Bystrica
District Court for bias and, on 19 July 2000, the Trenčín
Regional Court decided to exclude them and to transfer jurisdiction
to the Trenčín District Court. The latter received the
case file on 14 September 2000.
On
25 July 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint about the length of the
proceedings with the Constitutional Court. He directed the complaint
against the Trenčín District Court and claimed SKK
40,000
in just satisfaction.
On
13 November 2002 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint
admissible.
On
26 February 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the Trenčín
District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing
without unjustified delay. It ordered the District Court to proceed
with the case expeditiously, to pay the applicant SKK 20,000
in damages and to reimburse his legal costs.
The
Constitutional Court found that the subject-matter of the proceedings
was not particularly complex and that no delays could be imputed to
the applicant. As for the conduct of the authorities, the
Constitutional Court observed that the applicant's complaint was
aimed at the Trenčín District Court alone. Being bound by
the scope of the complaint, as expressed by the applicant, the
Constitutional Court was prevented from examining the phase of the
proceedings before the PovaZská Bystrica District Court. It
found that the Trenčín District Court had been inactive
without any justification for two years and three months.
The
proceedings in the applicant's action are still pending.
C. Action against a travel agency and related
constitutional complaints
On
17 April 2000 the applicant lodged an action against a travel agency
with the Bratislava I District Court. He submitted that the defendant
had wrongfully cancelled his holiday reservation and claimed damages
in the amount of approximately SKK 5,000.
On
21 March 2001 the District Court requested the applicant to pay court
fees, which he did on 23 April 2001. At the same time the applicant
submitted further and better particulars.
In
a letter of 17 July 2002 in response to the applicant's complaint the
President of the District Court acknowledged that there had been
undue delays in the proceedings.
On
5 August 2002 the District Court exempted the applicant from the
obligation to pay court fees.
On
5 August and 29 November 2002 the District Court requested,
respectively, that the defendant submit documents and observations in
reply.
In
the meantime, on 16 October 2002, the applicant lodged
a constitutional complaint about delays in the proceedings. He
claimed SKK 20,000 for his non pecuniary damage.
On
13 November 2002 the Constitutional Court assigned the applicant an
ex officio lawyer and declared the complaint admissible.
On
19 February 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant's
right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been violated,
ordered that the District Court proceed with the case expeditiously,
awarded the applicant SKK 10,000
in just satisfaction and ordered the reimbursement of his legal
costs.
The
subject-matter of the proceedings was not of a particular complexity,
no delays could be imputed to the applicant and the District Court's
conduct of the proceedings had been inefficient throughout.
On
14 May 2003 the District Court requested the applicant to adduce
evidence and to identify his witnesses, which he did on 22 May 2003.
In
November 2003 the District Court requested the applicant to specify
the defendant to the action. The applicant responded on 19 November
and 12 December 2003, respectively.
On
22 December 2003 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on
the ground that the applicant had failed to specify the defendant
correctly and completely.
On
16 March 2004 the District Court quashed its decision of 22 December
2003 on the applicant's appeal in which he had submitted the missing
information.
On
26 March 2004 the applicant challenged the District Court judge for
bias.
On
6 April 2004 the District Court held a hearing following which, on
the same day, it decided on the major part of the claim and ruled
that the remainder would be determined in a separate set of
proceedings. Those proceedings are still pending and they are not the
subject-matter of the present application. The applicant appealed.
On
21 July 2004 the District Court imposed a fine of SKK 2,000 on the
applicant for “causing delays and damaging the interests of a
party to the proceedings”.
On
8 September 2004 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the
challenge of bias and, on 20 April 2005, it upheld the judgment of 6
April 2004.
42. The
applicant lodged a fresh complaint under Article 127 of the
Constitution about continuing delays in the proceedings.
On
8 September 2004 the Constitutional Court appointed an ex officio
lawyer for the applicant and declared the complaint admissible in so
far as it concerned the proceedings before the District Court in the
period after its previous judgment (nález)
of 19 February 2003.
On
29 June 2005 the Constitutional Court found that, in the period under
consideration, there had been no violation of the applicant's right
to a hearing without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court
acknowledged that there had been delays of approximately 4 months
which were imputable to the District Court. However, apart from these
delays the District Court had dealt with the case properly and the
said delays had played no significant role in respect of the
proceedings as a whole. In contrast to that, the applicant had slowed
down the proceedings substantially by his unclear submissions.
D. Action of July 2000 and related constitutional
complaint
On
10 July 2000 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of
Finance and the Central Slovakia Electricity Company in the Zilina
District Court. In so far as could be established he claimed a
payment of SKK 341
per month in compensation for “intentional violations of
citizen's rights”.
On
18 July 2000 the Zilina District Court transmitted the case to the
Bratislava District Court for reasons of jurisdiction. On 9 August
2000 the latter objected to the transfer and requested that the
question of territorial jurisdiction be determined by the Supreme
Court.
On
18 September 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that the action fell to be
determined by the Zilina District Court.
On
31 October and 21 November 2000 the Zilina District Court repeatedly
requested the applicant to provide better particulars and warned him
that if he failed to do so, the proceedings would be discontinued.
The applicant responded on 10 November and 1 December 2000,
respectively.
On
24 January 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings but
the decision was quashed on the applicant's appeal by the Zilina
Regional Court on 10 July 2001.
In
May and September 2002 the District Court sought information
concerning the nationality and permanent residence of the applicant
and his parents.
The
District Court summoned the applicant for a hearing on 15 October
2003 with a view to establishing the scope and legal nature of the
action. The District Court subsequently requested that the applicant
bring the particulars of his claim into line with the applicable
formal rules.
On
4 February 2004 the District Court requested that the applicant pay
court fees. In response, the applicant requested a waiver of the
fees.
On
29 March 2004 the District Court granted the applicant a 50%
reduction of court fees. The applicant appealed requesting a full
exemption.
On
30 April 2004 the Zilina Regional Court
upheld the decision on court fees.
On
4 October 2004 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the
ground that the applicant had failed to pay the court fees. The
decision was upheld on the applicant's appeal (odvolanie) by
the Regional Court on 30 November 2004 and on his appeal on points of
law (dovolanie) by the Supreme Court on 13 October 2005.
In
the meantime, the applicant had contested the length of the
proceedings by way of a complaint under Article 127 of the
Constitution.
On
8 September 2004 the Constitutional Court appointed an ex officio
lawyer for the applicant and declared the complaint admissible.
On
29 June 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Zilina
District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing
without unjustified delay. It granted him the reimbursement of his
legal fees but dismissed his claim for compensation in respect of his
non-pecuniary damage.
The
Constitutional Court found no justification for the length of the
proceedings in their subject-matter. However, the applicant had
caused delays by his unclear and incomplete submissions and his
failure to pay court fees. There had also been inexcusable delays
imputable to the District Court which had been completely inactive
for 19 months.
Having
regard to the applicant's contribution to the length of the
proceedings, the Constitutional Court considered that the finding of
a violation of his right and the award in respect of costs and
expenses were sufficient just satisfaction for the prejudice he had
suffered.
D. Other facts invoked by the applicant
The
applicant considers that the co-operative which administers the block
of flats in which he lives has obliged him to pay excessive charges
and contributions for the use of the flat. He unsuccessfully tried to
have criminal proceedings brought in that connection.
The
applicant further alleges that by their policies the Government of
the Slovak Republic have brought about a fall in living standards in
Slovakia as a result of which he and many other persons have found
themselves in a difficult financial situation.
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...”
A. Admissibility
1. Action for protection of personal integrity
The
Government submitted that as a result of the Constitutional Court's
judgment of 9 July 2003 the applicant could no longer be considered
a “victim” in the Convention sense of a violation of
his right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
The
applicant contested that argument.
The
Court observes that, in view of the Constitutional Court's judgment
of 9 July 2003, a question arises whether the applicant can still
claim to be a “victim”, within the meaning of Article 34
of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a
reasonable time.
The
Court notes that in the present case the applicant's status as a
“victim” depends on whether the redress afforded to him
at the domestic level was adequate and sufficient having regard to
Article 41 of the Convention. This issue falls to be determined in
the light of the principles established under the Court's case law
(see, most recently, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no.
36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006-... , and Cocchiarella
v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-...).
The
Constitutional Court examined the overall length of the proceedings
which was slightly more than 6 years (from 17 December 1996 until 14
January 2003) for two levels of jurisdiction. It found that there had
been a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing without
unjustified delay and awarded him the equivalent of EUR 525 in just
satisfaction. This amount is less than 20% of what the Court would
generally award in a similar situation in a Slovakian case. Such
redress obtained by the applicant at the domestic level must be
considered insufficient (see Scordino (no. 1), cited above, §§
205-06 and 214-15). The applicant can accordingly still claim to be a
“victim” of a breach of the “reasonable time”
requirement.
The
period under the Court's consideration is the same as that examined
by the Constitutional Court (see the previous paragraph).
The
Court notes that this complaint 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.
2. Action against housing co-operative
The
Government raised a similar objection as in respect of the action for
protection of personal integrity (see paragraph 62 above).
The
applicant disagreed.
The
Court considers that this part of the application must be examined as
follows.
(a) Phase of the proceedings before the PovaZská
Bystrica District Court
The
Court observes that the applicant did not include this phase of the
proceedings in his constitutional complaint of 25 July 2002 (see
paragraph 22 above). The Constitutional Court was thus prevented from
examining it (see Obluk v. Slovakia, no.
69484/01, § 61, 20 June 2006).
It
follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35
§§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies.
(b) Phase of the proceedings before the Trenčín
District Court, as examined by the Constitutional Court
The
Court observes that a part of the proceedings before the Trenčín
District Court was examined by the Constitutional Court on the
applicant's constitutional complaint. It commenced on 14 September
2000 when the case file was transmitted to the Trenčín
District Court and ended on 26 February 2003 with the
Constitutional Court's judgment. It thus lasted about 2 years and 5
months for a single level of jurisdiction.
The
applicant's “victim” status in respect of this phase of
the proceedings depends on the redress afforded to him at the
domestic level. The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant the
equivalent of approximately EUR 525 in just satisfaction, granted him
reimbursement of his legal costs and ordered that the District Court
proceed with the case expeditiously. The Court does not find this
redress manifestly inadequate or insufficient, having regard to
Article 41 of the Convention and the criteria cited above.
The
Court therefore concludes that, even assuming that the length of this
part of the proceedings would otherwise raise an issue under Article
6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant
can no longer claim to be a “victim” within the meaning
of Article 34 of the Convention of the alleged violation of his right
to a hearing within a reasonable time.
It
follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4
of the Convention.
(c) Phase of the proceedings before the Trenčín
District Court after the Constitutional Court's judgment
The
Court observes that the proceedings are still pending. Thus, after
the Constitutional Court's judgment of 26 February 2003, they have
lasted more than 3 years and 8 months and this despite the
Constitutional Court's order that they be proceeded with
expeditiously (see Rišková v.
Slovakia, no. 58174/00, § 90, 22 August 2006).
The
Court notes that this complaint 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.
3. Action against travel agency
The
Government raised a similar objection as in respect of the action for
protection of personal integrity (see paragraph 62 above).
The
applicant disagreed.
The
applicant's “victim” status depends on the redress
afforded to him at the domestic level. In its judgments of 19
February 2003 and 29 June 2005 the Constitutional Court
examined the whole duration of the proceedings since 17 April 2000
until 6 April 2004. The period under the Constitutional Court's
examination was thus almost 4 years and it awarded the applicant the
equivalent of EUR 260 in just satisfaction. This is less than 20% of
what the Court would generally award in a similar situation in
a Slovakian case. Such redress obtained by the applicant at the
domestic level must be considered insufficient in the light of the
criteria quoted above. The applicant can accordingly still claim to
be a “victim” of a breach of the “reasonable time”
requirement.
The
period under consideration started on 17 April 2000 and ended on 20
April 2005. It thus lasted about 5 years for 2 levels of
jurisdiction.
The
Court notes that this complaint 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.
4. Action of July 2000
The
Government argued that in view of the Constitutional Court's judgment
of 29 June 2005 the applicant was no longer a “victim” in
the Convention sense.
The
applicant disagreed.
The
Court observes that the proceedings in question commenced on 10 July
2000 and ended on 13 October 2005. They thus lasted 5 years and some
3 months for three levels of jurisdiction.
It
should be noted that although the Constitutional Court found
a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing without
unjustified delay, it awarded no financial compensation in respect of
his non pecuniary damage. It found that no financial
compensation was appropriate and that the finding of a violation was
a sufficient redress.
It
must also be noted that in his constitutional complaint the
Constitutional Court assigned the applicant an ex officio
lawyer and awarded him reimbursement of his legal costs.
It
remains to be assessed whether the above redress can be considered
appropriate and sufficient (see, for example, Jensen v. Denmark
(dec.), no. 48470/99, 20 March 2003).
In
that connection the Court reiterates that there is a strong but
rebuttable presumption that excessively long proceedings will
occasion non pecuniary damage. However, in some cases, the
non-pecuniary damage may be only minimal or none at all (see Nardone
v. Italy, no. 34368/98, 25 November 2004). The domestic
courts will then have to justify their decision by giving sufficient
reasons (see Scordino (no. 1), cited above, § 204).
The
Constitutional Court justified its conclusion that no financial
compensation was necessary for the applicant's non-pecuniary damage
by citing the fact that the proceedings had been substantially
prolonged by the applicant. In particular, the Constitutional Court
noted that the applicant had obstructed the proceedings by unclear
submissions and procrastination as regards the payment of court fees.
The
Court notes that the legal nature of the applicant's claim was
uncertain and that he had to be asked on several occasions to clarify
and to submit further information (31 October and 21 November
2000, May and September 2002 and October 2003). He did not pay the
court fee and only at a late stage of the proceedings (2004) demanded
a waiver. In fact, his failure to pay the court fees led to the
discontinuation of the proceedings.
In
the light of the above facts the Court finds the reasons relied on by
the Constitutional Court sufficient.
The
Court therefore concludes that, even assuming that the length of
these proceedings would otherwise raise an issue under Article 6 §
1 of the Convention, the applicant can no longer claim to be a
“victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the
Convention of the alleged violation of his right to a hearing within
a reasonable time.
It
follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
B. Merits
The
Court will now examine whether the length of the proceedings in the
action for protection of personal integrity, the action against the
housing co-operative (in the period after the Constitutional Court's
judgment of 26 February 2003) and the action against the travel
agency was compatible with the “reasonable time”
requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention.
The
Government admitted that the length of the proceedings in question
had been excessive.
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 and having regard to its
case-law on the subject, as well as the above mentioned
admission by the Government, the Court considers that the length of
the proceedings in issue (see paragraph 93 above) was excessive and
failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2, 3, 6, 13 AND 17 OF
THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
The
applicant further complained that the Government of the Slovak
Republic had reduced his living standards, as a result of which he
had found himself in a difficult financial situation and that his
health had been affected. He also complained that the Slovakian
authorities had refused to prosecute persons responsible for the
alleged maladministration within the co-operative which administered
his flat. He relied on Articles 2, 3, 6, 13 and 17 of the Convention
and also Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
To
the extent that this part of the application has been substantiated
and falls within the Court's jurisdiction ratione materiae, it
has found no indication of a violation of the applicant's
Convention rights.
It
follows that the remainder 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
In
so far as can be established, the applicant claimed SKK 26,680
in respect of pecuniary damage. He also claimed SKK 210,000
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested these claims.
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 considers that the applicant must have sustained
some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, and having
regard to its case-law on the subject (see the recapitulation of the
relevant principles and, mutatis mutandis, their application
in Scordino (no. 1), cited above, §§ 267-272), and
taking into account that the applicant has already obtained some just
satisfaction under the Constitutional Court's judgments of
19 February and 9 July 2003, it awards him EUR 5,000 under that
head.
B. Costs and expenses
In
so far as can be established the applicant also claimed SKK 3,079
for various costs and expenses.
The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his 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, regard being had to the information in
its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the applicant, who was not represented by a
lawyer, the sum of EUR 80 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 complaint under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the proceedings
in the action for protection of personal integrity, the action
against the housing co-operative (in the period after the
Constitutional Court's judgment of 26 February 2003) and the action
against the travel agency admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention in the above-specified proceedings;
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, EUR 5,000 (five
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 80 (eighty
euros) in respect of costs and expenses, the above amounts to be
converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be
chargeable;
(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 19 December 2006,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
