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 >>
DUDEK v. GERMANY - 39778/07 [2010] ECHR 2034 (16 December 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2034.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 2034
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF DUDEK v. GERMANY
(Applications
nos. 39778/07, 11171/08, 43336/08, 52719/08, 15895/09, 16123/09,
16127/09, 16129/09, 27529/09, 27533/09 and 27596/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16
December 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dudek v. Germany,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and
Stephen Phillips, 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 eleven
applications (nos. 39778/07, 11171/08, 43336/08,
52719/08, 15895/09, 16123/09, 16127/09, 16129/09, 27529/09, 27533/09
and 27596/09) against
the Federal Republic of Germany
lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a German national, Mr Henry Dudek (“the
applicant”), between 10 July 2007 and 26 August 2008
respectively.
The
applicant was represented by Noreck Hoyer Dudek, a firm of lawyers
practising in Hannover. The German Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Deputy Agent, Mr H.-J.
Behrens, Ministerialrat, of the Federal Ministry of Justice.
On
25 August 2009 the
President of the Fifth Section communicated the complaints regarding
the length of the proceedings to the Government. In accordance with
Protocol no. 14, the applications were allocated to a Committee of
three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES
The
applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Lohne. He is a dentist and
member of the Lower Saxony Association of Contractual Dentists
(Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Niedersachsen) (“the
Association”), the self-governing body of the contractual
dentists practising in the Land Lower Saxony. The Association
is responsible for, inter alia, entering into contracts with
public health insurers on behalf of its members, checking costs
claimed by its members, distributing reimbursements for contractual
work paid by public health insurers, and allocating the effects of
austerity measures in the public health sector among its members.
1. Application no. 39778/07
On
19 June 2002 the applicant brought an action against the Lower Saxony
AOK- Die Gesundheitskasse, a public health insurance company,
before the Hanover Social Court (“the Social Court”),
seeking assistance in the institution of compensation proceedings for
alleged mistreatment of his mother during hospitalisation preceding
her death caused by cardiac arrest at the age of 83.
On
10 December 2002 the Social Court dismissed the action.
On
5 February 2003 the applicant appealed. The Lower Saxony Bremen
Social Court of Appeal (“the Social Court of appeal”)
held oral hearings on 30 September 2005 and on 18 April 2007. It
dismissed the appeal on the last-mentioned date, holding that the
respondent had sufficiently assisted the applicant by commissioning
an expert opinion and declaring the applicant’s further
complaints inadmissible because they had not been raised before the
Social Court.
On
13 May 2007 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint.
On
26 July 2007 the Federal Constitutional Court declared
the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible without
giving further reasons (1 BvR 1800/07).
2. Application no. 11171/08
On
30 March 1999 the Association determined the applicant’s
remuneration as a contractual dentist for the year 1998.
On
28 April 1999 the applicant made an unsuccessful administrative
complaint.
On
20 October 1999 he brought an action against the Association before
the Social Court which suspended the proceedings at the parties’
request on 22 April 2003.
On
29 August 2005 the Association modified the impugned decision,
stipulating that the applicant was entitled to 195,769.35
Deutschmarks (DEM) of the DEM 207,892.64 claimed.
On
26 September 2007 the Social Court dismissed the action after having
rescheduled an oral hearing at the applicant’s request. The
applicant’s requests for rectifications of the judgment and the
transcript of the hearing were to no avail. His attempts to institute
criminal proceedings against the presiding judge were unsuccessful.
On
12 May 2010 the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s
appeal.
Furthermore,
the applicant unsuccessfully pursued inactivity and constitutional
complaint proceedings before the Social Court of Appeal and the
Federal Constitutional Court.
3. Application no. 43336/08
On
29 March 2005 the Association determined the applicant’s
remuneration as a contractual dentist for the year 2004, stipulating
that he was entitled to 204,324.53 Euros (EUR) of the EUR 221,875.07
claimed.
On
7 April 2005 the applicant made an unsuccessful administrative
complaint.
On
10 March 2006 he brought an action against the Association before the
Social Court, which rejected the claim on 26 September 2007.
The
applicant appealed before the Social Court of Appeal.
On
23 April 2008 the Federal Constitutional Court declared the
applicant’s constitutional complaint that the Social Court had
taken no action manifestly inadmissible as clearly insufficiently
substantiated and imposed a fine of EUR 1,000
for abuse of process (1 BvR 917/08).
On
7 May 2008 the Social Court dismissed the applicant’s request
for rectification; the applicant’s appeal against that decision
was to no avail.
On
12 May 2010 the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s
appeal.
4. Application no. 52719/08
On
5 April 2000 the Association provisionally determined the applicant’s
remuneration as a contractual dentist for 1999. According to the
decision the applicant was entitled to DEM 515,581.04 of the
DEM 721,628.35 claimed.
On
18 April 2000 the applicant made an unsuccessful administrative
complaint.
On
17 April 2001 he brought an action against the Association before the
Social Court, which granted the action in part on 30 June 2004.
On
13 July 2004 the applicant appealed before the Social Court of
Appeal.
On
6 April 2006 the Association rendered a final decision which
supplanted the impugned decision.
On
9 April 2008 the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. On 30
April, 18 June and 11 August 2008 the Social Court of Appeal
dismissed challenges for bias against three of its judges; the
applicant’s appeals for the right to be heard against these
decisions were to no avail. On 7 November 2008 the Social Court of
Appeal dismissed the applicant’s requests for rectification of
the judgment and the transcripts.
On
17 June 2009 the Federal Social Court refused leave to appeal on
points of law.
5. Application no. 15895/09
On
29 March 2000 the Association, in applying a decision of its council
on the allocation of the effects of austerity measures for
contractual dentists among its members, provisionally deducted DEM
13,657.06 from the amount claimed by the applicant in respect of his
remuneration as a contractual dentist for 1999.
On
18 April 2000 the applicant made an unsuccessful administrative
complaint.
On
11 June 2001 he brought an action against the Association before the
Social Court which was dismissed on 5 November.
On
19 November 2003 the applicant appealed before the Social Court of
Appeal.
On
26 February 2004 the Association amended the impugned decision.
On
13 January 2006 the Social Court of Appeal suggested a friendly
settlement.
On
6 April 2006 the Association replaced the impugned decision.
On
9 April 2008 the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as
inadmissible. On 7 November 2008 it dismissed
the applicant’s request for rectification and as
inadmissible the applicant’s appeal for the right to be heard.
The applicant’s challenges for bias against two judges were
unsuccessful, as were his appeals for the right to be heard against
these decisions.
On
17 June 2010 the Federal Social Court refused leave to appeal on
points of law.
6. Application no. 16123/09
On
28 March 2001 the Association provisionally determined the
applicant’s remuneration as a contractual dentist for the year
2000, stipulating that he was entitled to DEM 527,171.48 of the DEM
674,102.66 claimed.
On
9 April 2001 the applicant made an unsuccessful administrative
complaint.
On
15 May 2002 he brought an action against the Association before the
Social Court which was dismissed on 29 September 2004.
On
25 October 2004 the applicant appealed before the Social Court of
Appeal, which dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 25 February
2009.
7. Application no. 16127/09
On
26 March 2002 the Association provisionally determined the
applicant’s remuneration as a contractual dentist for 2001,
stipulating that he was entitled to DEM 478,222.72 of the DEM
563,511.30 claimed.
On
5 April 2002 the applicant made an unsuccessful administrative
complaint.
On
2 July 2002 he brought an action against the Association before the
Social Court which was dismissed on 28 July 2004.
The
applicant appealed before the Social Court of Appeal. On 18 July
2005 the Social Court of Appeal stayed the proceedings and resumed
them on 25 August 2005. On 12 May 2010 it dismissed the applicant’s
appeal.
8. Application no. 16129/09
On
19 April 2002 the Association dismissed the applicant’s request
for a hardship allowance for 2000.
On
29 April 2002 the applicant made an unsuccessful administrative
complaint.
On
22 August 2002 the applicant brought an action against the
Association before the Social Court, which dismissed the action on
25 October 2006.
On
15 November 2006 the applicant appealed before the Social Court of
Appeal, which dismissed the appeal on 12 May 2010, after having
previously dismissed the applicant’s challenges for bias
against two judges and his appeals for the right to be heard against
these decisions.
9. Application no. 27529/09
On
5 April 2000 the Association determined the applicant’s
remuneration as a contractual dentist for the year 1999.
On
an unspecified date the applicant made an administrative complaint
which was dismissed on 24 March 2004.
On
1 April 2004 the applicant brought an action against the Association
before the Social Court, which dismissed the action on 26 September
2007.
On
23 April 2008 the Federal Constitutional Court declared the
applicant’s constitutional complaint that the Social Court had
taken no action manifestly inadmissible as clearly insufficiently
substantiated, and imposed a fine of EUR
1,000 for abuse of process (1 BvR
918/08).
On
25 April 2008 the Social Court dismissed the applicant’s
request for rectification; his appeal against that decision was to no
avail.
On
12 May 2010 the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s
appeal against the judgment of 26 September 2007.
10. Application no. 27533/09
On
23 March 2004 the Association determined the applicant’s
remuneration as a contractual dentist for the year 2003. According to
the decision the applicant was entitled to payment of EUR 181,976.50
of the EUR 198,310.84 claimed.
On
1 April 2004 the applicant made an unsuccessful administrative
complaint.
On
25 May 2004 he brought an action against the Association before the
Social Court, which dismissed the action on 26 September 2007.
On
23 April 2008 the Federal Constitutional Court declared the
applicant’s constitutional complaint that the Social Court had
taken no action manifestly inadmissible as clearly insufficiently
substantiated and imposed a fine of EUR 1,000
for abuse of process (1 BvR 916/08).
On
6 May 2008 the Social Court dismissed the applicant’s request
for rectification; the applicant’s appeal against that decision
was to no avail.
On
12 May 2010 the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s
appeal.
11. Application no. 27596/09
On
27 March 2003 the Association determined the applicant’s
remuneration as a contractual dentist for the year 2002, stipulating
that he was entitled to EUR 204,249.46 of the 229,852.22 claimed.
On
2 April 2003 the applicant made an unsuccessful administrative
complaint. On 7 August 2003 he brought an action against the
Association before the Social Court, which dismissed the action on 26
September 2007.
On
18 April 2008 the Federal Constitutional Court declared the
applicant’s constitutional complaint that the Social Court had
taken no action inadmissible, without giving further reasons (1 BvR
851/08).
On
6 May 2008 the Social Court dismissed the applicant’s request
for rectification; the applicant’s appeal against that decision
was to no avail.
On
12 May 2010 the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s
appeal.
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 ...”
The
Government, while acknowledging that the length of the proceedings at
issue had been excessive and therefore refraining from making
additional legal arguments, submitted that the applicant had been
responsible for some of the delays in the proceedings at issue.
1. Application no. 39778/07
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 19 June 2002 and ended
on 26 July 2007. It thus lasted five years, one month and six days
for three levels of jurisdiction, with the proceedings before the
Social Court of Appeal lasting for four years, two months and 12
days.
2. Application no. 11171/08
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 28 April 1999 and
ended on 12 May 2010. It thus lasted eleven years and 17 days for
three levels of jurisdiction, including inactivity proceedings before
the Social Court of Appeal and proceedings before the Federal
Constitutional Court.
3. Application no. 43336/08
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 7 April 2005 and ended
on 12 May 2010. It thus lasted five years, one month and six days for
three levels of jurisdiction, including proceedings before the
Federal Constitutional Court.
4. Application no. 52719/08
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 18 April 2000 and
ended on 17 June 2009. It thus lasted nine years and just under two
months for three levels of jurisdiction.
5. Application no. 15895/09
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 18 April 2000 and
ended on 17 June 2009. It thus lasted nine years and just under two
months for three levels of jurisdiction.
6. Application no. 16123/09
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 9 April 2001 and ended
on 25 February 2009. It thus lasted seven years, ten months and
20
days for two levels of jurisdiction.
7. Application no. 16127/09
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 5 April 2002 and ended
on 12 May 2010. It thus lasted eight years, one month and eight days
for two levels of jurisdiction.
8. Application no. 16129/09
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 29 April 2002 and
ended on 12 May 2010. It thus lasted eight years and 15 days for two
levels of jurisdiction.
9. Application no. 27529/09
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 24 March 2004 and
ended on 12 May 2010. It thus lasted six years, one month and 19 days
for three levels of jurisdiction, including proceedings before the
Federal Constitutional Court.
10. Application no. 27533/09
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 1 April 2004 and ended
on 12 May 2010. It thus lasted six years, one month and 11 days for
three levels of jurisdiction, including proceedings before the
Federal Constitutional Court.
11. Application no. 27596/09
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 2 April 2003 and ended
on 12 May 2010. It thus lasted seven years, one month and eleven days
for three levels of jurisdiction, including proceedings before the
Federal Constitutional Court.
A. Admissibility
The
Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It
further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds.
They 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 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, while the Court accepts the Government’s submission
that the applicant contributed to the overall length of the different
sets of proceedings by his frequent requests for rectification,
challenges for bias and unsuccessful appeals for the right to be
heard, it nevertheless finds that the majority of the delays are
attributable to the Government. Having regard to its case-law on the
subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the respective
length of the different sets of proceedings was excessive and failed
to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
The
Court further observes that the applicant’s constitutional
complaints that the Social Court had taken no action were not
effective remedies against excessive length of proceedings before the
social courts (compare Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no.
75529/01, § 108, ECHR 2006 VII).
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF
ARTICLE 2, 3, 10, 13 AND 14 TO THE CONVENTION AS WELL AS ARTICLE 1 OF
PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
In
application no. 39778/07 the applicant further complained about
violations of Articles 2, 3, 10, 14 and 17 of the Convection. In
several other applications, he also complained about violation of
Article 13 of the Convention because his appeals and appeals for the
right had been dismissed and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention in view of deductions made by the Association from the
sums claimed by him.
However,
in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as
the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds
that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights
and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It
follows that these complains are manifestly ill-founded and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 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.”
The
applicant claimed at least EUR 440,000 in respect of non pecuniary
damage concerning all eleven applications (no. 39778/07: EUR 100,000;
nos. 52719/08, 15895/09, 16123/09, 16127/09, 16129/09, 27529/09,
27533/09 and 27596/09: at least EUR 40,000; nos. 11171/08
and 43336/08: at least EUR 30,000).
The
Government considered the claims to be excessive but left the matter
to the Court’s discretion.
Having
regard to its case-law on the subject and ruling on an equitable
basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 30,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
The
applicant further claimed the following sums in respect of pecuniary
damage.
In
applications nos. 43336/08, 52719/08, 15895/09, 16123/09, 16127/09,
16129/09, 27529/09, 27533/09 and 27596/09 he claimed EUR 375,660.60
for the purchase of his dental practice (a loan of EUR 217,299.05
for the purchase price; EUR 150.805.54 interest paid on the loan; and
EUR 7,562.01 for the real estate agent’s fee) as well as
EUR 700,000 or, alternatively, EUR 3,500 per month with a
price adjustment clause in respect of loss of pension rights, since
he was only entitled to a pension of EUR 398.39 per month under the
public pension scheme.
The
applicant further claimed the following sums which appear to be the
difference between the sums to which the applicant considered himself
to be entitled because of his work as a contractual dentist and those
allocated to him by the Association. In application no. 11171/08 he
claimed DEM 16,000 (= EUR 8,180.67) with interest as of
1 April 1999, in application no. 43336/08 EUR 17,550.54 with
interest as of 1 May 2005, in application no. 52719/08 DEM 231,219.70
(= EUR 118,220.76) with interest as of 1 April 2000, in application
no. 27529/09 the same amount minus EUR 30,140.92 (i.e. a
hardship allowance granted by the Association in 2004), in
application no. 15895/09 DEM 15,630.33 (= EUR 7.991,66) with interest
as of 1 March 2000, in application 27533/09 EUR 16,334.34 with
interest as of 1 April 2004, in application no. 27596/09 EUR
25,602.76 with interest as of 1 April 2004, and in applications no.
16123/09, 16127/09 and 16129/09 DEM 146,931.18 (= EUR 75.124,72)
with interest as of 1 April 2004, respectively.
The
Government contested the existence of a causal link between the
damage claimed and the length of the proceedings at issue. The
Government further submitted that the applicant had not substantiated
his claim as regards the pension entitlement for he had only tendered
a partial copy of a document outlining his entitlements under the
compulsory pension scheme. As a dentist, however, the applicant was
free to opt out of the compulsory pension scheme and contribute to a
private pension scheme, such as the one for dentists of which the
applicant was presumably a member.
The
Court is not persuaded that the sums claimed for the purchase of the
dental practice have a connection with the length of the proceedings
that started after these sums had been incurred.
As
regards the difference between the sums claimed and paid out to the
applicant, the Court observes that the applicant in any event could
claim these sums only once and not several times for each set of
proceedings concerned with aspects of the remuneration for a given
period. The damage claimed was in any event not caused by the length
of proceedings at issue but by the application of the applicable
rules on remuneration for contractual dentists, the legality of which
was in dispute between the applicant the Association.
Insofar as the loss of pension entitlements is concerned, the Court
concludes for the reasons submitted by the Government that the
applicant failed to substantiate his claim.
The
claim in respect of pecuniary damage must accordingly be rejected in
its entirety.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant did not claim reimbursement for cost and expenses incurred
in the proceedings before the Court. The Court accordingly makes no
award under this head.
The
applicant claimed the following sums for the costs and expenses
incurred in proceedings before the domestic courts. He claimed EUR
2,116.20 for two fines of EUR 1,000 which had been imposed by the
Federal Constitutional Court for abuse of process with execution
costs of EUR 58.10 (applications no. 43336/08 and 27529/09). He
further claimed EUR 3,000 for the costs of counsel before the Federal
Social Court; as proof he submitted a copy of a bank remittance slip
(no. 52719/08). He further claimed EUR 9,645 for court fees imposed
by the social courts (application no. 27529/09: EUR 1,668; nos.
15895/09, 16123/09, 16127/09 and 16129/09: EUR 1,592; nos. 43336/08,
27533/09 and 27596/09: EUR 543). He lastly claimed EUR 375 for
inadmissible legal remedies he had pursued following incorrect advice
by either the Social Court or the Federal Constitutional Court
(application no. 11171/08: EUR 175; no. 433336/08: EUR 100; nos.
27533/09 and 27596/09: EUR 50 each).
The
Government contested these claims.
The
Court has consistently held that costs and expenses will not be
awarded under Article 41 unless it is established that they were
actually and necessarily incurred, and were reasonable as to quantum.
Furthermore, legal costs are only recoverable in so far as they
relate to the violation found (see, for example, Beyeler v. Italy
(just satisfaction) [GC], no. 33202/96, § 27, 28 May 2002,
and Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 105,
ECHR 2003-VIII).
As
regards the two fines of EUR 1,000 imposed by the Federal
Constitutional for abuse of process as well as EUR 58.10 execution
costs, and being mindful that such fines may be characterised as
extraordinary court fees (compare Matterne (V) v. Germany
(dec.), no. 4041/06, 13 October 2009), the Court observes that
the fines were imposed for having lodged clearly inadmissible
constitutional complaints. The applicant did not demonstrate that the
length of the proceedings before the social courts prevented him from
lodging constitutional complaints in conformity with the procedural
requirements under German law. These costs were thus not necessarily
incurred.
As regards the sum of EUR 3,000 for legal fees paid to counsel in
regard to leave to appeal on points of law proceedings before the
Federal Social Court, the Court notes that the applicant did not
submit an invoice by counsel. Even assuming that the costs were
actually incurred, the Court cannot assess whether the costs were
reasonable as to quantum in the absence of an invoice.
As
regards the court fees imposed by the social courts, the Court
observes that the applicant was ordered to pay these fees because of
his appeals not because of the length of the proceedings at issue. It
follows that the applicant did not establish that these sums were
related to the violation found.
As
regards the sum claimed for inadmissible legal remedies the applicant
had pursued following incorrect advice by either the Social Court or
the Federal Constitutional Court, the Court notes that these sums
were incurred because of the instructions on the right to appeal
given by the Social Court or the instructions which the applicant had
deducted from the reasons given by the Federal Constitutional Court
for dismissing as inadmissible his constitutional complaints. It
follows that the applicant did not establish that these sums were
related to the violation found.
In
the present case, regard being had to the information in its
possession and the above criteria, the Court considers that the
applicant has not established that the costs and expenses claimed for
the proceedings before the domestic courts were actually and
necessarily incurred, were reasonable as to quantum and related to
the violation found. The applicant’s claim for costs and
expenses incurred in the proceedings before the domestic courts must
accordingly be rejected.
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
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the complaints concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
applications 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
(i) EUR
30,000 (thirty thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) any
tax that may be chargeable;
(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 16 December 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger Deputy Registrar President
