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 >>
BARTL v. SLOVAKIA - 50360/08 [2010] ECHR 2020 (14 December 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2020.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 2020
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF BARTL v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 50360/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 December 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bartl 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. 50360/08) 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 Jaroslav Bartl (“the applicant”), on
23 June 2005.
The
Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
On
9 February 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 1941 and lives in Dunajská LuZná.
On
23 July 1996 the applicant challenged his dismissal from a job. The
Bratislava II District Court and, on appeal, the Bratislava Regional
Court found against the applicant. The decision was served on the
applicant and became final on 17 December 2003.
On
13 January 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
On
22 September 2005 the Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible,
stating that this remedy could be lodged only in certain
circumstances. The applicant had not invoked any such circumstances
and the Supreme Court had not established their existence when
examining ex officio the issue of admissibility of the
appeal on points of law.
On
23 August 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's
complaint about the overall length of the above proceedings, lodged
on 16 July 2004. It held that the District and the Regional
Court's proceedings had already ended in 2003 and the applicant's
complaint in respect of that part was belated. It found no delays in
the Supreme Court's proceedings.
On
3 June 2008 the applicant requested reopening of the above civil
proceedings. No decision in this respect has been adopted yet.
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 argued that the applicant had not lodged his
constitutional complaint in accordance with the formal requirements.
It was the Constitutional Court's practice to
examine the length of proceedings complaints only when the
proceedings were still pending before the authority liable for the
alleged violation at the moment when the constitutional complaint was
lodged, and to reject the complaints which were introduced after the
proceedings complained of had been concluded.
The
applicant reiterated his complaint.
In
view of its established case-law on the subject (see A.
R., spol. s r. o. v. Slovakia,
no. 13960/06, §§ 35-38, 9 February 2010), the Court does
not accept the Government's argument that the applicant should have
separately complained before the Constitutional Court of the
individual parts of the proceedings in his case at the time when they
were pending before each of the authorities involved. The
Government's objection must, therefore, be dismissed.
The
Court observes that the proceedings lasted from 23 July 1996 until 22
September 2005. Their overall duration was thus nine years and two
months at three levels of jurisdiction. It notes that the applicant
requested reopening of his case. However, as no decision granting the
request has been adopted, this fact is not relevant, at the present
stage, for determination of the period of the proceedings under the
Court's consideration (see Hollý v. Slovakia (dec.),
no. 29239/03, 3 November 2009).
It
follows that this complaint 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. The Court further finds that
this part of the application 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 reiterates that special diligence is
necessary in employment disputes (Ruotolo v. Italy, judgment
of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D, p. 39, § 17).
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, 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.
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. ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
In his application form the applicant did not invoke
Article 13 of the Convention. Given that the Court is free, in the
performance of its task, to attribute to the facts of the case a
characterisation in law different from that given by the applicant
(see Camenzind v. Switzerland, judgment of
16 December 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions,
1997-VIII, § 50), it considered it appropriate, when
communicating the case to the Government, to examine it also under
Article 13 of the Convention. Article 13 provides:
“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 complaint procedure under Article 127
of the Constitution was an effective remedy, but the applicant had
not used it in accordance with the formal requirements.
The
applicant claimed that he had not had an effective remedy at his
disposal.
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 takes the view 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.
However,
the applicant in the present case complained to the Constitutional
Court about the overall duration of the proceedings, but the
Constitutional Court excluded from its review their substantial part.
In these circumstances, the Court considers that in the present case
the applicant's right to an effective remedy has not been respected
(see A. R., spol. s r. o. v. Slovakia, cited above, §§
59-60).
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 85,242 euros (EUR), as a minimum, in respect of
pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested these claims.
The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, it considers that the applicant must have sustained
non pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards
him EUR 6,600 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant stated that the overall amount claimed (see point A above)
also covered his costs and expenses.
The
Government left the matter to the Court's discretion.
The
Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant, who was not
represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 100 covering out-of-pocket
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;
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 6,600 (six thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 100 (one hundred 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 14 December 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Lech Garlicki
Deputy Registrar President
