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 >>
K NTOROVA v. SLOVAKIA- 44286/06 [2010] ECHR 2030 (14 December 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2030.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 2030
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF KÁNTOROVÁ
v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 44286/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14
December 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kántorová 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. 44286/06) 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 Margita Kántorová (“the
applicant”), on 23 October 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 1944 and lives in Košice.
The
facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised
as follows.
1. Proceedings concerning the distribution of matrimonial property
In
an action of 19 July 1991 filed with the Košice
II District Court the applicant sought the distribution of her
and her former husband's matrimonial property.
The
District Court held a number of hearings and obtained evidence
including an expert opinion. The Košice Regional Court dealt
twice with a challenge of bias against the District Court
judge and once with the applicant's appeal against a decision to pay
an advance for the costs of an expert opinion.
On
23 January 2007 the District Court determined the merits of the case.
Both the applicant and the defendant appealed. The District Court
transmitted the case to the court of appeal on 9 January 2008. The
court of appeal quashed the first-instance judgment on 8 July 2009
and remitted the case to the District Court for a new determination.
2. Constitutional proceedings
On
10 May 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice
II District Court had violated the applicant's right under
Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing
without unjustified delay. The applicant by her conduct had
contributed to the length of the proceedings. The District Court was
responsible for delays totalling 6 years and 8 months during the
period subsequent to 15 February 1993 which fell within the
jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
The
Constitutional Court awarded 100,000 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.
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 her right to a hearing within a reasonable
time since the amount of just satisfaction awarded to her had been
adequate in the circumstances of the case. Moreover, the
Constitutional Court's judgment had preventive effect since eight
months after its finding the District Court had delivered a judgment.
As to the course of the proceedings following the Constitutional
Court's judgment, the Government submitted that the applicant was
required to have recourse again to the Constitutional Court under
Article 127 of the Constitution.
The
applicant disagreed.
The Court observes
that the period to be taken into consideration began only on 18 March
1992, when the recognition by the former Czech and Slovak Federal
Republic, to which Slovakia is one of the successor States, of the
right of individual petition took effect. However, in assessing the
reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must
be taken of the fact that, already at that time, the proceedings had
been pending for almost eight months. It follows that under the
Court's temporal jurisdiction the length of the proceedings at the
time of the Constitutional Court's judgment had lasted almost 14
years and 2 months at two levels of jurisdiction. The court of appeal
dealt with three procedural issues and for the majority of time the
case had been dealt with by the court of first instance.
The
Court further notes that the Constitutional Court awarded the
applicant SKK 100,000 in just satisfaction in respect of
non-pecuniary damage. As regards the relevant period of the
proceedings examined by the Constitutional Court, this amount cannot
be considered to have provided adequate and sufficient redress to the
applicant in view of the Court's established 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, §§ 69-107, ECHR 2006-V). In
view of the above, it concludes that the applicant did not lose her
status as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the
Convention (see, for example, Bič
v. Slovakia,
no. 23865/03, § 37, 4 November 2008) of a
violation of her right under Article 6 § 1 to a
hearing within a reasonable time.
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.
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 finds no 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 concurs with the Constitutional Court that the length of the
proceedings up to the date of the Constitutional Court's judgment was
excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time”
requirement.
The
Court notes that after the delivery of the Constitutional Court's
judgment the proceedings before the District Court lasted more than
four years and five months at two levels of jurisdiction and they are
still pending.
In
the light of the above and having regard to its case-law on the
subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the overall
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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
After
the application had been communicated to the Government, the
applicant also complained that her right to the peaceful enjoyment of
her possessions had been violated in consequence of the length of the
proceedings. She relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The
Court observes that the applicant had not raised this complaint in
her complaint before the Constitutional Court, nor did she seek
redress of the alleged violation before the courts at the domestic
level.
It
follows that this part of the application is inadmissible for
non exhaustion of domestic remedies and must be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 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 had not specified the amount of damage inviting the Court
to determine the appropriate amount of both pecuniary and
non pecuniary damage on equitable basis.
The
Government requested the Court not to grant the applicant any award
in respect of pecuniary damage since she had failed to show existence
of causal link between the alleged violation and pecuniary damage
claimed. As to the claim for non-pecuniary damage they left the
matter to the Court's discretion, pointing out that the just
satisfaction granted already to the applicant at the domestic level
should be taken into account.
The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation
found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this
claim. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, having regard to
its case law on the subject and to the fact that the applicant
obtained some redress at the domestic level, it awards the applicant
EUR 6,500 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 complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
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
6,500 (six thousand five 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
