(Application no. 15592/03)
8 January 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 Dudičová v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 December 2008,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
1. Proceedings concerning the restitution of plots of land
2. Proceedings concerning compensation for livestock and other property (Michalovce District Court file 10 C 419/93)
3. Proceedings concerning compensation for destroyed property (Michalovce District Court file 10 C 418/93)
4. Proceedings concerning the applicant's share in a cooperative's property (Michalovce District Court files 10 C 806/94 and 10 C 843/96)
5. Insolvency proceedings against the cooperative (Košice Regional Court file K 149/96)
6. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court (file III. ÚS 199/02)
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
1. Insolvency proceedings against the cooperative (Košice Regional Court file K 149/96)
(a) Alleged unfairness of the proceedings
It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
(b) Length of the proceedings
2. The remaining sets of proceedings
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 8 AND 14 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
“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.”
1. The length of the insolvency proceedings
2. The remaining complaints
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 13.
IV. 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.”
B. Costs and expenses
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
(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 6,640 (six thousand six hundred and forty 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 January 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President