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 >>
BERECOVA v. SLOVAKIA - 31651/06 [2010] ECHR 1549 (19 October 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1549.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 1549
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF BERECOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 31651/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 October
2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Berecová v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Ján
Šikuta,
Vincent Anthony de Gaetano, judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 28 September 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 31651/06) 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 Adriana Berecová
(“the applicant”), on 25 July 2006.
The
applicant was represented by Mrs I. Rajtáková, a lawyer
practising in Košice. The Slovak Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M.
Pirošíková.
On
23 June 2008 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with
Protocol no. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of
three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Košice.
On
15 March 2002 the applicant lodged an action against her former
husband, the municipality of Košice and a third party,
challenging the validity of two contracts by which the applicant's
former husband had firstly bought an apartment and then sold it to a
third party.
On
26 October 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's
complaint about the length of these proceedings inadmissible as being
manifestly ill-founded.
On
12 January 2009 she lodged a fresh constitutional complaint.
On
17 March 2009 the Košice II District Court found against the
applicant. The applicant appealed.
On
21 October 2009 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the
applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. Having
regard to the overall length of proceedings, it awarded the applicant
1,000 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's
legal costs. It did not order the District Court to proceed with the
case on the ground that that court had already adopted a decision on
merits.
On
4 March 2010 the Košice Regional Court quashed the
first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance
court.
The
District Court adopted a judgment in the applicant's favour on 2 July
2010. One of the defendants appealed and the proceedings are still
pending.
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 agreed with the Constitutional Court's findings of 2005
and 2009 argued that the applicant should have lodged a fresh
complaint in respect of the subsequent period.
The
applicant reiterated her complaint.
At
the time of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 2009 the
proceedings had lasted seven years and seven months at two levels of
jurisdiction. They are still pending. In view of its established
case-law (see Becová v. Slovakia (dec.),
no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007), the
Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and 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 materials submitted to it and having regard to its
case-law on the subject, the Court concurs with the view expressed by
the Constitutional Court in 2009 that in the instant case the length
of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable
time” requirement. It finds further delays in the period after
that judgment.
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 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested that claim.
Ruling
on an equitable basis and having regard to the fact that the
applicant obtained partial redress in the proceedings before the
Constitutional Court, the Court awards EUR 2,200 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed EUR 1,333.40 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the Constitutional Court (as regards the proceedings
leading to the decision of 2005) and the Court.
The
Government contested the claim, arguing that the applicant did not
support it by providing any bills or invoices.
The Court will make an award in respect of costs and
expenses in so far as these were actually and necessarily incurred
and were reasonable as to quantum. The Court considers it reasonable
to award the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, the sum of
EUR 1,000 (see Gerstbrein v. Slovakia, no. 17252/04, §
27, 21 April 2009).
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,
the following amounts:
(i) EUR 2,200 (two thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may
be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand 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 19 October 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Lech Garlicki
Deputy Registrar President
