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 >>
J.V. AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA - 41523/07 [2010] ECHR 1825 (23 November 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1825.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 1825
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF J.V. AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 41523/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 November 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of J.V. and Others 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 2 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 41523/07) 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 three Slovak nationals on
7 September 2007. The first applicant, Mr J.V., is the father of the
second applicant, Mr R.S., and of the third applicant, Ms E.S., (“the
applicants”).
The
applicants were initially represented by Mrs Z. Neuschlová
and, subsequently, by Mr J. Čarnogurský, lawyers
practising in Bratislava. The Government of the Slovak
Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
On
9 March 2009 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
applicants were born in 1947, 1986 and 1986 respectively and live in
Bratislava.
1. Civil proceedings
On
7 April 1995 the applicants claimed compensation for damage to their
health (infection with Hepatitis C).
On
6 November 2007 the Bratislava I District Court dismissed their
action.
On
29 May 2009 the Bratislava Regional Court, upon the applicants'
appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case
file for further examination to the district court.
On
18 January 2010 the applicants complained to the President of the
district court about undue delays. On 2 February 2010 the President
of the court concerned acknowledged that there had been delays in the
proceedings.
On
4 March, 18 May and 1 July 2010 the district court held hearings.
The
proceedings are pending.
2. First set of constitutional proceedings
On
8 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I
District Court had violated the applicants' right to a hearing
without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court awarded 30,000
Slovakian Korunas (SKK) to each applicant as just satisfaction in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, ordered the district court to avoid
further delays and to reimburse the applicants' legal costs.
3.
Second set of constitutional proceedings
On
15 March 2007 the Constitutional Court found that, in the period
after its previous ruling, the Bratislava I District Court had
violated the applicants' right to a hearing without unjustified
delay. The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 50,000 to each applicant
as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ordered the
district court to avoid further delays and to reimburse the
applicants' legal costs.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicants 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 expressed the view that the applicants could no longer
claim to be victims of a violation of their right to a hearing within
a reasonable time. They argued that the Constitutional Court had
twice expressly acknowledged such a violation, had awarded the
applicants sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage
suffered, had ordered the district court to proceed without further
delay and had ordered reimbursement of their legal costs. The
applicants should have lodged a fresh constitutional complaint
in respect of the subsequent period.
The
applicants contested the above arguments. They argued that the
compensatory and accelerating effects produced by the Constitutional
Courts' findings had not been sufficient. In view of the above, they
were not obliged to lodge a fresh constitutional complaint. The
applicants pointed to further delays in the subsequent proceedings.
They also stressed that the sensitive subject matter of the dispute
has required special diligence.
The
Court notes that, at the time of the second Constitutional Court's
finding, the proceedings were pending for eleven years and more than
eleven months before the district court.
Whether
redress afforded to an applicant was adequate and sufficient, having
regard to Article 41 of the Convention, falls to be determined in the
light of the principles established under the Court's 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). These include, most
notably, the amount of the compensation awarded to the applicant and
the effectiveness of any preventive measure applied (see Sika v.
Slovakia (no. 3), no. 26840/02, § 54, 23 October 2007).
In
view of the above, in respect of the proceedings up to the second
Constitutional Court's finding of 15 March 2007, the Court accepts
the applicants' argument and concludes that the applicants did not
lose their status as victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the
Convention.
Since
the effects produced by the findings of the Constitutional Court did
not satisfy the criteria applied by the Court, the applicants were
not required, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the
Convention, to have again recourse to the remedy under Article 127 of
the Constitution in respect of the proceedings subsequent to the
Constitutional Court's findings (see the recapitulation of the
relevant principles in Becová v. Slovakia (dec.),
no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007). The Government's objections
must therefore be dismissed.
Following
the Constitutional Court's second finding, the proceedings have
lasted another three years and more than six months at two levels of
jurisdiction.
It
follows that this part of the application cannot be rejected for
non exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of
Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and it 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
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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII). The Court reiterates that, given the subject
matter of the dispute, special diligence was necessary in the present
case.
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 considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. In
particular, at the time of the second Constitutional Court's finding,
the proceedings had lasted eleven years and more than eleven months
at one level of jurisdiction. Further delays occurred in the
subsequent period which has lasted three years and more than six
months at two levels of jurisdiction. 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. 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
applicants claimed jointly 250,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government considered the claim exaggerated.
The
Court awards EUR 7,000 to each of the applicants in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicants also claimed EUR 1,116.43 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the Court. The applicants supported their claims by
invoices in the amount of EUR 876.06.
The
Government considered the claim exaggerated.
Regard
being had to the documents in its possession and to its case law,
the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants jointly the
sum of EUR 876 for the costs and expenses 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 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 applicants, within three months,
the following amounts:
(i) EUR 7,000 each (seven thousand
euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 876 jointly (eight
hundred and seventy-six euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable
to the applicants, 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 applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 November 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Lech Garlicki
Deputy Registrar President
