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 >>
JANIK v. SLOVAKIA - 5952/05 [2009] ECHR 1665 (27 October 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1665.html
Cite as:
[2009] ECHR 1665
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF JANÍK v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 5952/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 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 Janík 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 Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 October 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 5952/05) 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 Anton Janík
(“the applicant”), on 20 January 2005.
The
applicant was represented by Ms O. Beláňová, a
lawyer practising in Bratislava. The Slovak Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs
M. Pirošíková.
On
8 March 2007 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
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Trenčín.
A. Proceedings concerning the action of 16 November 1999
On
16 November 1999 the applicant challenged the validity of a company's
statute before the Trenčín Regional Court.
The case was registered under the file number 7 Cb 73/99.
The
case was dealt with by the Regional Court. The Supreme Court
examined, for three months, the applicant's request for an interim
measure.
On
7 May 2003 the Regional Court discontinued the proceedings as there
was an obstacle of litis pendens. The applicant's appealed.
On
4 August 2003 the file was transferred to the Supreme Court which
quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the
Regional Court. The file was transferred back to the latter on
31 October 2003.
On
20 May 2004 the Regional Court delivered a judgment on the
applicant's claims.
The
defendant appealed. The file was transferred to the Supreme Court on
11 October 2004.
On
3 November 2005 the Supreme Court adopted a judgment which was served
on the parties and became final on 20 December 2005.
B. Proceedings related to the other actions lodged by the
applicant
In
2000 the applicant filed two and in 2003 one action, in which he
challenged decisions taken at a company's general meeting.
The
Regional Court dealt with the first action
in proceedings no. 7 Cb 13/00. Its judgment was partially
upheld and partially amended by the Supreme Court. The judgment
became final on 21 June 2005.
The
second action was examined in the proceedings 7 Cb 60/00. On 20
May 2004 it was joined to and decided upon in the proceedings
7 Cb 73/99 mentioned above (see point A).
The
proceedings on the third action (file no. 7 Cbs 5/03) ended by the
Supreme Court's decision of 20 June 2007.
C. Constitutional proceedings
On
18 August 2004, on the applicant's complaint, the Constitutional
Court found that the Regional Court had violated the applicant's
right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the proceedings
no. 7 Cb 73/99. The length of the proceedings was partly due to
the complexity of the case and the applicant's conduct. The Regional
Court had remained inactive for a period exceeding two years.
The overall length of the proceedings was in itself excessive in the
particular circumstances of the case.
The
Constitutional Court ordered the Regional Court to proceed with the
case without further delay and to reimburse the applicant's costs. It
held that its finding in itself provided appropriate just
satisfaction to the applicant. The Constitutional Court, therefore,
dismissed the applicant's claim in that respect.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained that the length of the above sets of 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. Proceedings concerning the action of 16 November 1999
The
Government expressed the view that, in respect of the period examined
by the Constitutional Court, the applicant could no longer claim to
be a victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a
reasonable time. They argued that the Constitutional Court had
expressly acknowledged such a violation and had ordered the Regional
Court to proceed with the case. Its decision not to award any just
satisfaction had been reasoned and justified. The Government stated
that, with respect to the Supreme Court's proceedings which followed
the Constitutional Court's judgment, the applicant could have lodged
a fresh complaint with the Constitutional Court.
The
applicant disagreed.
The
Court observes that the proceedings started on 16 November 1999
and ended on 20 December 2005. They thus lasted six years and one
month at two levels of jurisdiction. It also notes that the
applicant's constitutional complaint was directed exclusively against
the proceedings before the Regional Court.
At
the time of the Constitutional Court's judgment the proceedings
before the Regional Court had lasted four years and three months.
As regards the relevant period examined by the Constitutional
Court, the redress obtained by the applicant at the domestic level
cannot be considered adequate and sufficient in view of the Court's
established case-law (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no.
36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006-V, and Cocchiarella v.
Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 65-107, ECHR 2006-V).
In
view of the above, the Court concludes that the applicant did not
lose his status as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the
Convention. Accordingly, he was not required to again resort to
the complaint procedure under Article 127 of the Constitution in
respect of the period of the proceedings after the Constitutional
Court's judgment (see, for the recapitulation of relevant principles,
Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06,
18 September 2007).
The
Court notes that this part of 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.
2. Proceedings related to the other actions lodged by the
applicant
The
Government stated that, as regards the remaining sets of proceedings
brought by the applicant, he had not exhausted the available
remedies, more specifically a complaint under Article 127 of the
Constitution.
The
applicant argued that the individual sets of proceedings were
interrelated and should not be examined separately. In his view he
was not required to lodge separate complaints concerning the
individual sets of proceedings, stating that the subject-matter of
individual cases was similar.
The Court observes that the remedy under Article 127
of the Constitution became available as from 1 January 2002 (see
Andrášik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos.
57984/00, 60226/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00 and
68563/01, ECHR 2002-IX). It further notes that the Constitutional
Court's examination of individual human rights complaints is limited
by statute to the summary of complaints, as formulated by the
applicants (Obluk v. Slovakia, no. 69484/01, §§
48 and 61, 20 June 2006). The summary of the applicant's
constitutional complaint was directed exclusively against the length
of the proceedings pending under file no. 7 Cb 73/99 (see
point 1 above). The Constitutional Court was, therefore, prevented
from examining the other sets of proceedings initiated by the
applicant.
It
follows that the complaint of the length of the remaining sets of
proceedings initiated by the applicant must be rejected under
Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the
Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
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 regard to its case-law on the subject, the
Court concurs with the Constitutional Court that the length of the
proceedings up to the date of the Constitutional Court's judgment was
excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time”
requirement. There were no further delays present in the proceedings
after the Constitutional Court's judgment.
Having
examined all the materials submitted to it and 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
The
applicant also complained that he had not had an effective remedy at
his disposal within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention,
which reads:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The
Government contested that argument.
The
Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the
availability at the national level of a remedy to enforce the
substance of the Convention rights and freedoms. As mentioned
earlier, the applicant had at his disposal a complaint procedure
under Article 127 of the Constitution but he failed to use it in
respect of three sets of proceedings (see paragraphs 25 28
above).
The
applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court only in
connection with the proceedings on his action of 16 November 1999
(no. 7 Cb 73/99). On the basis of his complaint, the
Constitutional Court found a violation of his right to a hearing
within a reasonable time. The fact that the redress obtained at the
domestic level was not sufficient for the Convention purposes does
not render the remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution in the
circumstances of the present case incompatible with Article 13 of the
Convention (see Šidlová v. Slovakia, no.
50224/99, § 77, 26 September 2006).
It
follows that this complaint 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
The
applicant claimed EUR 2,500 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 the full sum claimed.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed SKK 6,510 (the equivalent of EUR 216) for his
legal representation before the Court. He further claimed EUR 514 for
the court fees paid in the proceedings before the ordinary courts.
The
Government contested these claims.
Having
regard to the materials in its possession, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the sum of EUR 216 covering legal costs incurred
in the proceedings before the Court.
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
on the applicant's action of 16 November 1999 admissible and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
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 Convention, the following
amounts:
(i)
EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 216 (two hundred and sixteen 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 27 October 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
