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 >>
KESZELI v. SLOVAKIA - 34602/03 [2009] ECHR 1536 (13 October 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1536.html
Cite as:
[2009] ECHR 1536
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF KESZELI v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 34602/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13
October 2009
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 Keszeli v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Giovanni
Bonello,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku,
Nebojša
Vučinić,
judges,
and Lawrence
Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 September 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 34602/03) 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 Vojtech
Keszeli (“the applicant”), on 22 October 2003.
The
Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mrs A. Poláčková and Mrs M. Pirošíková,
their successive Agents.
On
27 March 2006 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Šaľa.
A. Proceedings concerning the applicant's action of 7
July 1994
On
7 July 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava I
District Court against a private company. He claimed the equivalent
of approximately 3,300 euros (EUR) which the company owed him.
On
28 April 1998 insolvency proceedings were brought against the company
and the proceedings on the applicant's action were stayed ex lege
pending the outcome of the insolvency proceedings (see point B
below).
B. Insolvency proceedings against the applicant's
debtor
On
23 October 1996 the Bratislava Regional Court started insolvency
proceedings against the debtor company. That decision was quashed by
the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Regional Court started a new set
of insolvency proceedings on 28 April 1998.
The
administrator in insolvency refused to acknowledge the applicant's
claim originally introduced on 7 July 1994 (see point A above). The
applicant, therefore, lodged a separate action, on 17 April
1997, with a view to having his title to the debtor company
determined. In a judgment which became final on 9 July 2001 the
Regional Court confirmed that the applicant was entitled to the sum
claimed. He was, however, not entitled to default interest on the
amount claimed by him.
Meanwhile,
on 23 September 1999 and 28 September 2000 the administrator in
insolvency informed the Regional Court about her activities.
A
meeting of creditors was held on 24 October 2000.
On
15 February and 11 October 2001 the administrator submitted a report
on her activities in the proceedings.
On
22 April and 16 December 2002 the court asked the administrator to
submit a report on her activities in the insolvency proceedings. She
was informed that her failure to comply with the court's order would
lead to the imposition of a fine.
The
administrator submitted her report on 31 January and 2 October 2003
and 24 February 2004.
On
17 November 2004 the court asked the administrator to submit her
final report and her claims for fees and expenses.
The
administrator complied with the order on 27 January 2005.
The
court repeatedly asked the administrator to modify the final report.
She submitted the report on 21 September 2005.
On
23 November 2005 the final report was accepted by the court.
Meanwhile,
several other creditors lodged separate actions with the Regional
Court in respect of their claims to the debtor company's property. In
2006 three of those sets of proceedings, initiated in 2001, were
pending.
The
insolvency proceedings are still pending.
C. Constitutional proceedings
On
1 October 2003 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's
complaint of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the proceedings on his action of 7
July 1994 and the insolvency proceedings. The decision stated that
the Bratislava I District Court was prevented from dealing with the
case as the proceedings before it had been stayed ex lege
pending the outcome of the insolvency proceedings against the debtor
company. At that time the District Court could not, therefore, be
held liable for any violation of the applicant's rights. The
Constitutional Court could not examine the alleged delays in the
District Court's proceedings before they had been stayed, as the
relevant part of the application had been submitted after the expiry
of the statutory two-month time-limit. The Constitutional Court found
no particular delays in the insolvency proceedings pending before the
Regional Court.
As
regards the alleged violation of the applicant's rights under Article
1 of Protocol No. 1, the Constitutional Court held that their
protection fell within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.
Furthermore, the insolvency proceedings were still pending.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
Insolvency
proceedings are regulated by the Insolvency Act (Act No. 328/1991
Coll. was in force until 1 January 2006, when it was replaced by Act
No. 7/2005 Coll.). According to the relevant provisions, the
administrator in insolvency administers the insolvency assets,
converts the insolvency assets into money and satisfies the
creditors' claims. Pursuant to § 66f of the 1991 Insolvency Act
and § 196 of the 2005 Insolvency Act, the Code of Civil
Procedure is the lex generalis in relation to the Insolvency
Act in respect of insolvency proceedings.
The
general responsibilities of an insolvency court are set out in §§ 8
and 12 of the 1991 Insolvency Act and in §§ 40-42 of the
2005 Insolvency Act. In insolvency proceedings the court appoints and
removes the administrator. It can, inter alia, impose a fine
on the administrator for a failure to fulfil his or her duties, ask
the administrator to submit reports and explanations and consult the
administrator's accounts. The court can also order the administrator
to act in a certain manner.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about
the length of the above sets of proceedings. Under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 he claimed that, due to the courts' failure to proceed
with his case in an appropriate manner, he had been unable to obtain
the sum owed to him. The Court considers it appropriate to examine
his complaints under Article 6 § 1 alone, which in its relevant
part 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 contested the applicant's argument. They also argued that,
as regards the period after the Constitutional Court's decision, the
applicant could have lodged a fresh complaint under Article 127 of
the Constitution.
The
applicant reiterated his complaint.
The
Court observes that the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's
complaint inadmissible. Since the applicant was unable to obtain
redress before the Constitutional Court in respect of a substantial
part of the proceedings, the Court concludes that, as to the period
of the proceedings following the Constitutional Court's decision, he
was not required to repeatedly seek redress before the Constitutional
Court as suggested by the Government (see, mutatis mutandis,
Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06,
18 September 2007). In this context it is also relevant that the
present application was introduced without any substantial delays
after the Constitutional Court's decision (see Španír
v. Slovakia, no. 39139/05, § 47, 18 December 2007).
The Court notes that the applicant introduced his
civil claim on 7 July 1994 and that the respective proceedings
were stayed on 28 April 1998 as a result of the insolvency
proceedings brought against his debtor. Consequently, the applicant
sought to register his original claim with the administrator in the
context of the insolvency proceedings. As the administrator had
refused to acknowledge the claim, the applicant was forced to lodge a
separate action against the administrator with a view to having his
entitlement acknowledged by a court. The Regional Court confirmed the
applicant's right to claim the sum in the context of the insolvency
proceedings by a decision that became final on 9 July 2001. In this
respect the Court notes that at that time the applicant did not have
at his disposal an effective remedy for his complaint about the
length of the proceedings, as the complaint under Article 127 of the
Constitution became available only as from 1 January 2002 (see
Andrášik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.),
nos. 57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01,
60226/00, 22 October 2002). After the judicial confirmation
of the applicant's entitlement to claim the above amount of money in
the insolvency proceedings, the latter have remained pending.
In
accordance with its practice to examine the length of the proceedings
taken as a whole, the Court finds that, in the circumstances of the
case, the individual proceedings should be treated as a single
dispute over the applicant's claim introduced in 1994 (see, mutatis
mutandis, Komanický v. Slovakia (no.2), no.
56161/00, § 118, 2 October 2007, Sika v. Slovakia,
no. 2132/02, §§ 25, 26, 13 June 2006). It concludes that
the period under consideration started in 1994 and that two courts,
both acting as first-instance courts, have been dealing with the
applicant's claim since that time, that is for fifteen years.
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.
B. Merits
The
Government argued that there were no delays either in the civil
proceedings brought in 1994 or in the insolvency proceedings which
could be imputed to the court, the administrator or other
authorities. In their view the administrator fulfilled her duties
duly, speedily and adequately and the insolvency court appropriately
exercised its obligations pursuant to the relevant provisions of the
Insolvency Act. Furthermore, the insolvency proceedings could not end
before the final decisions in three other related sets of proceedings
were adopted.
The
applicant disagreed, stating that the length of the proceedings 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).
It observes that the District Court has been prevented by law from
dealing with the applicant's civil claim as from 1998 when the
proceedings were stayed. As regards the insolvency proceedings, it
accepts the Government's argument that their course partially depends
on the outcome of three related sets of proceedings pending before
the same court. However, those sets of proceedings, which had already
started in 2001, have not yet ended and no arguments justifying such
a long period have been submitted. These
circumstances cannot justify the overall duration of the
proceedings (see Dudičová
v. Slovakia, no. 15592/03, § 73, 8 January 2009).
Having
examined all the materials submitted to it, and having regard to its
case-law on the subject, the Court considers that the period under
its consideration has been excessive and has 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 EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested the claim.
The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis and having regard to its
case-law on the subject, it awards him EUR 10,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant claimed EUR 400 in respect of the costs and expenses
incurred before the Constitutional Court and the Court.
The
Government contested these claims. They noted that the only invoices
submitted concerned the applicant's legal costs incurred in the
constitutional proceedings (the equivalent of EUR 292.10) and some
out-of-pocket expenses (the equivalent of EUR 24.55).
The
Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant, who was not
represented by a lawyer, the sum claimed.
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;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
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 ConventionN,
the following amounts:
(i) EUR
10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
400 (four hundred 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 October 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
