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 >>
STEFANIKOVA v. SLOVAKIA - 23846/02 [2007] ECHR 856 (23 October 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/856.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 856
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF ŠTEFÁNIKOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 23846/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23
October 2007
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 Štefániková v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr J.
Casadevall,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S.
Pavlovschi,
Mr J. Šikuta,
Mrs P. Hirvelä,
judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 2 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 23846/02) 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, Ms Tatiana
Štefániková (“the applicant”), on 31
May 2002.
The
Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Ms their Agent, Ms A. Poláčková,
who was subsequently succeeded in that function by Ms M. Pirošíková.
On
7 July 2006 the Court
decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Applying
Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it 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 1956 and lives in Zilina.
A Action
On
13 May 1996 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zilina
District Court (Okresný súd). In her capacity as
a self-employed entrepreneur, she submitted that she had bought a
cash register from another entrepreneur, that the cash register was
faulty and that, therefore, she had repudiated the contract. She
sought an order for payment of 24,750 Slovakian korunas
(SKK) by way of restitution of the purchase price.
On
7 June 1996, in summary proceedings, the District Court issued
a payment order (platobný rozkaz) for the amount
claimed.
The
defendant then challenged the order by way of a protest (odpor),
as a result of which the order was ex lege vacated.
On
23 March 1999 the District Court appointed an expert to draw up
a report concerning the alleged defects in the cash register. On
1 March 2000 the District Court appointed a second expert
since it had turned out that the first expert was not licensed to
carry out the type of analysis needed.
On
19 April 2000 the expert report was drawn up and the District Court
then sought the parties' observations on it.
In
2001 and 2002 the District Court sought further information from the
parties and repeatedly requested them to make the cash register
available for testing.
Between
16 September 1996 and 5 March 2003 the District Court held 4
hearings.
Following
the last-mentioned hearing, on the same day, the action was
dismissed. The District Court found it established that the cash
register did not function correctly and that this was caused by the
applicant connecting it to an electrical outlet different from the
one specified in the operating instructions. In other words, the
applicant had failed to establish that the malfunction was due to
defects in the cash register.
On
24 March 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal contesting both the
factual findings as well as the legal conclusions of the District
Court.
On
13 November 2003 the Zilina Regional Court (Krajský súd)
heard the appeal following which, on the same day, it overturned the
judgment of 5 March 2003. Disapproving the District Court's factual
findings, the Regional Court granted the action in full. It was true
that the cash register had not been connected exactly in accordance
with the operating instructions. However, as concluded by the expert,
the connection complied with all applicable technical norms and it
was not the cause of the malfunction. The burden of proving the cause
of the failure and establishing who was responsible for it rested
with the defendant. The defendant had the cash register in his
possession, had failed to deliver it to the court and had put up no
other relevant defence to the action. Having been served on the
parties, the judgment became final on 29 January 2004.
B. Constitutional complaint
On
22 January 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of
the Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný
súd). She directed the complaint against the District
Court, contesting the length of the proceedings before it and
claiming SKK 145,000
in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
On
19 February and 2 July 2003, respectively, the Constitutional Court
declared the complaint admissible and found that the District Court
had violated the applicant's right to a hearing “without
unjustified delay” under Article 48 § 2 of the
Constitution. The applicant was awarded SKK 20,000
by way of just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
the reimbursement of her legal costs.
In
view of the scope of the complaint, as formulated by the applicant,
the period under the Constitutional Court's review was more than 6
years and 9 months. No justification for the length of this
period could be found either in the nature of the case or in the
applicant's procedural conduct. On the other hand, the District Court
had been completely inactive for more than 2 years and 4 months
between September 1996 and February 1999. The District Court's
understaffing and its excessive workload could not be accepted as
excuses in this respect.
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
The
Government objected that, as a result of the Constitutional Court's
judgment of 2 July 2003, the applicant could no longer be considered
a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the
Convention. They maintained that the Constitutional Court had
examined the applicant's constitutional complaint thoroughly and that
the amount of just satisfaction awarded complied fully with the
Constitutional Court's practice and was reasonable in the
circumstances of the case. Moreover, the proceedings before the
Constitutional Court had been easily accessible to the applicant, had
been speedy and had been conducted in the applicant's language and
the compensation had been paid to her without any delay.
As
for the substance of the application, the Government admitted, with
reference to the Constitutional Court's finding of 2 July 2003, that
the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been
violated.
The
applicant disagreed and submitted that she had caused no delays in
the proceedings, that their excessive length had been entirely caused
by the authorities and that that the redress she had obtained from
the Constitutional Court could not be considered adequate.
The
Court observes that, in view of the Constitutional Court's judgment
of 2 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 her right to a hearing within a
reasonable time.
The
Court observes that in the present case the applicant's status as
a “victim” depends on whether the redress afforded
to her 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-...).
Before
the Constitutional Court, the applicant complained of the length of
the proceedings before the first-instance court. Their length was
more than 6 years and 9 months. The Constitutional Court awarded the
applicant the equivalent of approximately 575 euros (EUR) in respect
of non-pecuniary damage. This amount is below 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
proceedings commenced on 13 May 1996 and ended with the decision of
13 November 2003. They thus lasted 7 years and some 6 months. In
this period the action was examined at 2 levels of jurisdiction.
Although, before the Constitutional Court, the applicant did not
complain of the phase of the proceedings on her appeal, it cannot be
dissociated completely from the proceedings before the District Court
and should be taken into consideration (see, mutatis mutandis,
Pavlík v. Slovakia, no. 74827/01, § 107,
30 January 2007).
The
Court notes that the application 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.
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 and having regard to its
case-law on the subject as well as the admission by the Government
(see paragraph 19 above), 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. 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 SKK 26,000
in respect of pecuniary damage and SKK 14,000
in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The former amount represented the
price of a new cash register.
The
Government contested the claim concerning the alleged pecuniary
damage. As for the alleged non-pecuniary damage, the Government
pointed out that the applicant had already received compensation at
the domestic level.
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
non-pecuniary damage and that the claim should be awarded in full. It
accordingly awards the applicant EUR 400 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed SKK 10,000
for the costs and expenses.
The
Government contested the claim.
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 that the applicant
incurred expenses such as postage and out-of-pocket expenses and
considers that the sum claimed should be awarded in full. It
accordingly awards her EUR 285.
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 application admissible;
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 applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 400 (four
hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 285 (two
hundred and eighty five euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to
be converted into the national 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;
4. Dismisses
the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
