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 >>
CHRAPKOVA v. SLOVAKIA - 21806/05 [2009] ECHR 1704 (3 November 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1704.html
Cite as:
[2009] ECHR 1704
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF CHRAPKOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 21806/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3
November 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 Chrapková 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 13 October 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 21806/05) 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, Ms Vlasta
Chrapková (“the applicant”), on 10 June 2005.
The
Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
On
21 May 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 1947 and lives in Piešťany.
A. Proceedings
concerning the applicant’s action under the Land Ownership Act
1991
On
31 December 1992 the applicant filed an action with the Nitra
District Court. Under the Land Ownership Act 1991 she claimed
compensation for agricultural property and livestock which had been
transferred to a co-operative in 1951.
In
March 1997, January 2002 and May 2005 issues of a procedural nature
were determined by the court of appeal.
In
September 2007 the Government informed the Court that the proceedings
were pending before the District Court. No information is available
about further developments in the case.
B. Constitutional
proceedings
On
30 December 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District
Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without
unjustified delay. The decision stated that the proceedings had been
pending for 12 years. During that period not a single hearing
had been held with a view to taking evidence and establishing the
facts relevant for the determination of the applicant’s action.
Such situation was not justified by the complexity of the case. The
applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings in that,
upon the court’s instruction of 3 June 1993, she had completed
her action on 10 March 1997 and had not informed the District Court
that, in the meantime, she had initiated proceedings with a view to
establishing which person was obliged under the relevant law to pay
compensation to her.
As
to the conduct of the District Court, unjustified delays in the
proceedings exceeded 8 years. Furthermore, the District Court had
failed to proceed in an effective manner, whereby the proceedings had
been protracted. The Constitutional Court pointed to (i) the
insufficient instruction of the applicant about essentials of her
action and (ii) the decisions of the Regional Court of September 1997
and January 2002 to quash the District Court’s decisions.
The
Constitutional Court awarded SKK 100,000 (the equivalent of 2,574
euros at that time) to the applicant as compensation for
non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the District Court to avoid any
further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s
costs.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings examined by
the Constitutional Court 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 pointed, in respect of the proceedings examined by the
Constitutional Court, to the complexity of the case from the factual
and legal point of view and to the fact that the amount of just
satisfaction awarded by the Constitutional Court was relatively high.
On the other hand, they admitted that since the beginning of the
proceedings until the Constitutional Court’s finding, i.e.
during a period of 12 years, not a single hearing had been held. In
view of the above, the Government left the question whether the
applicant could still be considered a victim to the Court’s
discretion.
The applicant argued that the amount of just satisfaction granted by
the Constitutional Court was disproportionately low in the
circumstances of the case. Furthermore, she disagreed with the
statement of the Constitutional Court that she had contributed to the
length of the proceedings in the period between 3 June 1993 and 10
March 1997.
The Court notes that the applicant exclusively
complained about undue delays in the proceedings examined by the
Constitutional Court. The period to be taken into consideration thus
began on 31 December 1992 and ended on 15 December 2004. During that
period the proceedings were pending for almost 12 years. The
Constitutional Court held that the District Court had failed to
proceed in an effective manner, awarded the applicant the equivalent
of EUR 2,574 as just satisfaction and ordered the District Court to
avoid any further delay in the proceedings.
The
amount awarded by the Constitutional Court cannot be considered as
providing adequate and sufficient redress to the applicant 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, in respect of the proceedings up to the time of
the Constitutional Court’s finding, the Court concludes that
the applicant did not lose her status as a victim within the meaning
of Article 34 of the Convention.
The applicant’s constitutional complaint was
only directed at the proceedings before the first-instance court.
This fact has to be taken into account when determining the merits of
the application and, if appropriate, the applicant’s claims for
just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention (see,
for example, Judt v. Slovakia,
no. 70985/01, § 61, 9 October 2007, with further
reference).
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
Government agreed with the Constitutional Court’s finding that
undue delays had occurred in the proceedings examined by it and
stated that the complaint was not manifestly ill-founded.
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, the Court notes that the
Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having
regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in
the instant case the length of the proceedings up to the
Constitutional Court’s finding 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 146,134.6 euros (EUR) plus default interest in
respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 50,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested the pecuniary damage claimed by the
applicant. They considered the claim for
non-pecuniary damage exaggerated. They left the matter to the Court’s
discretion and requested the Court to take into account the just
satisfaction awarded by the Constitutional Court.
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, and bearing in mind the sum awarded by the
Constitutional Court, it awards the applicant EUR 2,380 in respect of
non pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant submitted no claim for costs and expenses.
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 Convention, EUR
2,380 (two thousand three hundred and eighty euros),
plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary
damage;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 3 November 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
