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 >>
IVAN v. SLOVAKIA - 49362/06 [2010] ECHR 2019 (14 December 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2019.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 2019
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF IVAN v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 49362/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14
December 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ivan 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 23 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 49362/06) 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 Pavol Ivan (“the applicant”), on
6 December 2006.
The
Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
On
7 February 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 1954 and lives in Zabokreky.
The
facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised
as follows.
On
9 June 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Martin District
Court. He claimed the ownership and restitution of a motor car.
On
10 October 2003 the applicant modified his claim and asked for leave
to join another person as a defendant. The District Court granted the
request.
On
5 December 2003 the District Court remitted the case file to the
Zilina Regional Court which decided on the defendant's appeal
on 26 January 2004.
On
13 July 2004 an expert was asked to prepare an opinion. The expert
opinion was submitted on 27 April 2006.
On
8 June 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court
had violated the applicant's right under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.
The
Constitutional Court held that the case was not particularly complex
and that the applicant by his conduct had not contributed to the
length of the proceedings. Substantial delays imputable to the
District Court had occurred. The proceedings had lasted 11 years and
no decision had been delivered on the merits.
The
Constitutional Court awarded 80,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) to the
applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It
also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the
proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
On
12 October 2006 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim.
The applicant appealed.
On
31 October 2007 the Zilina Regional Court upheld
the judgment. The decision became final on 27 February
2008.
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 submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a
victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable
time since the amount of just satisfaction awarded to him by the
Constitutional Court was adequate in the circumstances of the case.
Moreover, the Constitutional Court's judgment had had preventive
effect since four months after its finding the District Court had
delivered a judgment. As to the course of the proceedings following
the Constitutional Court's judgment, they submitted that the
applicant was required to have recourse again to the Constitutional
Court under Article 127 of the Constitution. In any event, there
was no indication of any unreasonable delay.
The
applicant disagreed.
The
Court observes that the applicant's status as a victim depends on
whether the redress afforded to him at the domestic level was
adequate and sufficient having regard to Article 41 of the
Convention. This issue 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, §§ 69 98, ECHR 2006-V).
The
Court notes that the applicant initiated the proceedings on 9 June
1995 by lodging a claim with the District Court. Except for one
procedural issue which had been decided by the Regional Court the
case had been dealt with by the District Court for almost eleven
years.
The
Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 80,000 in respect
of non-pecuniary damage. This amount is disproportionately low,
having regard to what the Court generally awards in similar cases.
The
redress obtained by the applicant at the domestic level was thus
insufficient (see Scordino (no. 1), cited above, §§ 214-5).
The applicant can accordingly still claim to be a “victim”
within the meaning of Article 34 of a violation of his right under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable
time.
The
Court notes that this complaint 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 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.
The
Court notes that after the delivery of the Constitutional Court's
judgment the proceedings before the District Court lasted one year
and eight months at two levels of jurisdiction. Thus, the overall
length of the proceedings under consideration was twelve years and
eight months at two levels of jurisdictions.
In
the light of the above-mentioned considerations and 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
applicant claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of non pecuniary damage.
The
Government left the matter to the Court's discretion and requested
that the award granted to the applicant at the domestic level be
taken into account.
The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards award him EUR 3,700
under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant did not submit a 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 EUR
3,700 (three thousand seven hundred 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 14 December 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Lech Garlicki
Deputy Registrar President
