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 >>
VRABEC v. SLOVAKIA - 1941/06 [2010] ECHR 1902 (30 November 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1902.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 1902
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF VRABEC v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 1941/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vrabec 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 9 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 1941/06) 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, Mr Igor Vrabec (“the applicant”), on
30 December 2005.
The
applicant was represented by Ms Z. Kupcová, a lawyer
practising in Bratislava. The Government of the Slovak
Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
On
5 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
applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava.
1. Enforcement proceedings against the applicant
On
7 November 1997 enforcement proceedings were initiated against the
applicant.
On
21 January 1999 the Bratislava IV District Court dismissed the
applicant's objections against the enforcement and its costs.
On
31 January 2000 the district court dismissed the applicant's request
for adjournment of the enforcement. On 30 June 2000 the decision was
upheld by the Bratislava Regional Court.
On
29 January 2001 the applicant requested the district court to issue
an interim measure and to discontinue the enforcement.
On
21 May 2001 the district court adjourned the enforcement pending its
decision on the applicant's request for the enforcement to be
discontinued. On 30 November 2001 the regional court quashed the
above decision.
On
29 October 2003 the applicant again requested discontinuation of the
enforcement proceedings.
On
25 October 2007 the district court rejected the applicant's request
for interim measures.
On 17 March 2009 the district court dismissed the
applicant's request for discontinuation of the proceedings.
On 28 January 2010 the regional court, on the
applicant's appeal, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted
the case to the district court for further examination.
On 20 May 2010 the district court discontinued the
proceedings and held that it would deliver a decision on costs once
the decision to discontinue the proceedings became final.
On 24 June 2010 the applicant's representative
informed the Court that the decision has not yet become final.
2. Constitutional proceedings
On
6 October 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court
about length of the proceedings before the Bratislava IV District
Court and claimed the equivalent of 2,426 euros (EUR) at that time as
just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage suffered.
The
Constitutional Court examined the period of the proceedings after 29
January 2001.
On
2 February 2005 it found that the district court had violated the
applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay, ordered the
latter to avoid further delays and to reimburse the applicant's legal
costs.
It
concluded that these represented a sufficient
just satisfaction and did not award the applicant any award
for non-pecuniary damage. It referred to the
fact that the applicant was the liable party in the proceedings.
It further held that the applicant had failed to specify the
allegedly suffered harm.
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...”
Admissibility
The
Government expressed the view that 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, had ordered the district
court to proceed without further delay and had ordered reimbursement
of the applicant's legal costs. The applicant
should have lodged a fresh constitutional complaint in respect of the
subsequent period.
The
applicant contested the Constitutional Court's finding as (i) in his
opinion, the enforcement proceedings had been unlawful, (ii) in his
constitutional complaint, and contrary to the Constitutional Court's
reasoning, he had duly specified the harm suffered and (iii) the
Constitutional Court had failed to examine a part of the proceedings
complained of without providing any reasons for doing so. The
applicant further alleged that the Constitutional Court's finding
lacked both a compensatory and an accelerating effect. In view
of the above, the applicant argued that he was still a victim and
that he was not obliged to lodge a fresh constitutional complaint.
The
Court notes that, at the time of the Constitutional Court's finding,
the District Court, in respect of which the applicant complained to
the Constitutional Court, had been responsible for a period of
approximately six years and eight months.
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).
The
Court cannot overlook the fact that the period imputable to the
District Court was approximately six years and eight months and that
the Constitutional Court itself had acknowledged the district court's
responsibility for delays in the proceedings. In view of the above,
in respect of the proceedings up to the Constitutional Court's
finding of 2 February 2005, the Court concludes that the
applicant did not lose his status as a victim within the meaning of
Article 34 of the Convention.
Since
the effects produced by the finding of the Constitutional Court did
not satisfy the criteria applied by the Court, the applicant was 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 judgment (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' finding, the proceedings have lasted
another five years and eight months.
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 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 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 Constitutional Court's
finding, the period under consideration had lasted approximately six
years and eight months at one level of jurisdiction. Further delays
occurred in the subsequent period which has lasted five years and
eight months. The Court considers, having regard to its case-law,
that the length of the proceedings in the instant case 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 further complained that he had no 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.”
A. Admissibility
The
Government argued that the applicant had an effective remedy at his
disposal and that the fact that the redress obtained from the
Constitutional Court was not sufficient for 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.
The
applicant contested the above argument.
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.
Merits
The Court reiterates that the remedy under Article 127
of the Constitution is likely to provide appropriate and sufficient
redress to applicants where it allows for examination of the entire
duration of the proceedings complained of (see Andrášik
and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos. 57984/00,
60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01, 60226/00,
22 October 2002).
Since
the applicant in the present case complained to the Constitutional
Court about the overall duration of the proceedings before the
district court and since, unlike in other decisions, the
Constitutional Court excluded from its review their part (prior to 29
January 2001) and, in addition, its finding had no compensatory or
accelerating effect, the Court considers that the applicant's right
to an effective remedy has not been respected (see also A. R.,
spol. s r. o. v. Slovakia, no. 13960/06, §§ 59-60,
9 February 2010).
There
has therefore been a violation of Article 13 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 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government considered the claim exaggerated.
The
Court considers that it should award the full sum claimed.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed EUR 812,19 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court.
The
Government had no objection against the award of a demonstrably
incurred costs and expenses in the proceedings before the Court.
According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers that the sum claimed should be awarded in full.
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;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the
Convention;
Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 812,19 (eight hundred twelve euros and nineteen cents), 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Lech Garlicki Deputy Registrar President
