(Application no. 63959/00)
3 October 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 Kuril v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr M. Pellonpää,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Ms L. Mijović,
Mr J. Šikuta, judges,
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 May 2006 and on 12 September 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date:
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
1. Proceedings concerning compensation for loss of salary
2. Proceedings concerning compensation for damage
3. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court further notes that it was open to the applicant to seek redress by means of the remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution to the extent that he may be understood as complaining also about delays in the proceedings before the Regional Court and the Supreme Court. The applicant failed to do so, and this fact has to be taken into account when determining the merits of the application and, if appropriate, any just satisfaction award to be made under Article 41 of the Convention.
To the extent that the cases were subsequently examined by a court of appeal and a court of cassation, it was open to the applicant to seek redress before the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 37 above).
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“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.”
“... according to the Court’s established case law, failure to submit quantified claims within the time allowed for the purpose under Rule 60 § 1, together with the required supporting documents, entails the consequence that the Chamber will either make no award of just satisfaction or else reject the claim in part. This applies even if the applicant has indicated his wishes concerning just satisfaction at an earlier stage of the proceedings. No extension of the time allowed will be granted.”
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 October 2006, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Elens-Passos Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President