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 >>
ZONGOROV v. SLOVAKIA - 28923/06 [2010] ECHR 51 (19 January 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/51.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 51
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF ZONGOROVÁ
v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 28923/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 January 2010
This judgment will become
final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Zongorová v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Nebojša Vučinić,
judges,
and Lawrence Early,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 15 December 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 28923/06) 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 Slovakian national, Ms Ľudmila
Zongorová (“the applicant”), on 7 July 2006.
The
applicant was represented by Mr V. Šárnik, a lawyer
practising in Bernolákovo. The Slovakian
Government (“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. It was also decided to
rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same
time (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Bratislava.
1. Inheritance proceedings
In
1964 the applicant's grandfather died and inheritance proceedings
were instituted.
On
12 January 1966 the State Notary approved the inheritance settlement.
In the settlement the applicant's mother waived her right to a share
of the estate although her legal capacity was restricted. An
apartment in which she lived with the applicant was included in the
estate.
In
1983 the property in issue was confiscated by the State.
In
1991 the heirs under the inheritance settlement of 1966 applied for
the property in restitution proceedings, signed a restitution
agreement and became owners of the property.
On
17 August 1992 the applicant requested the State Notary Bratislava I
that the inheritance settlement be served on her.
After
its receipt, on 9 October 1992, the applicant appealed against the
settlement to the Bratislava City Court.
On
8 December 1993 the Bratislava City Court dismissed the appeal.
On
14 February 1994 the applicant appealed on points of law to the
Supreme Court.
On
31 August 1994 the Supreme Court quashed the decision and returned
the case to the Bratislava City Court.
On
2 November 1994 the Bratislava City Court quashed the decision of the
State Notary of 12 January 1966 and returned it to the Bratislava I
District Court.
On
2 January 1995 the Bratislava I District Court appointed a notary to
pursue the inheritance proceedings.
On
5 March 1996 the Bratislava I District Court issued a decision.
On
22 March 1996 the applicant appealed.
On
5 September 1996 the Bratislava City Court quashed the decision and
returned it to the Bratislava I District Court.
On
15 May 1997 the Bratislava I District Court stayed the proceedings
pending the outcome of a different set of proceedings before the
Bratislava I District Court. Those proceedings ended with the
Bratislava Regional Court's decision of 8 November 2004.
After
receipt of a certificate of ownership of the property in issue, the
Bratislava I District Court, on 28 May 2007, discontinued the
proceedings stating that the deceased did not possess any estate at
the time when the decision was made.
On
5 August 2008 the applicant appealed against the decision.
2. Proceedings concerning the applicant's action of 23 December
1996
On
23 December 1996 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava I
District Court for the determination of the property in her
grandfather's estate.
On
11 March 2005 the Bratislava I District Court dismissed the action on
the ground that the current owner of the estate had not been included
in the applicant's action as a defendant.
Subsequently,
the applicant appealed.
On
10 November 2005 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the decision.
It stated that the applicant had not proved any pressing need for the
determination of the property in the estate and that her right to
claim the property in issue had lapsed after the restitution
proceedings which had ended in 1991. According to the court's
reasoning previous legal transactions prevented the applicant from
claiming that the property still continued to belong to the estate.
On
7 February 2006 the applicant appealed on points of law to the
Supreme Court.
On
21 February 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal
as inadmissible.
3. Constitutional proceedings
On
2 March 2006 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court
about a violation of her right to inheritance and the right to a fair
trial in the proceedings concerning the action of 23 December 1996.
The applicant also complained about the length of the inheritance
proceedings.
On
15 March 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint
concerning the length of the inheritance proceedings admissible and
decided to deal with the remaining complaints separately.
On
8 June 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I
District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 §
2 of the Constitution and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to
a hearing without unjustified delay in the inheritance
proceedings.
It
ordered the Bratislava I District Court to proceed without delay and
awarded 50,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK), (the equivalent of
1,325 euros (EUR) at that time), to the applicant as just
satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the
Bratislava I District Court to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
On
19 June 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the remaining
complaints. The Constitutional Court stated that the decision of the
Bratislava Regional Court was not arbitrary and therefore there was
no violation of the applicant's right to a fair hearing. Concerning
the alleged breach of the right to property, it held that it lacked
authority to deal with the complaint.
On
5 June 2008 the applicant lodged a second complaint with the
Constitutional Court complaining about a breach of her rights under
Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
as a result of the decision of the Bratislava I District Court of 28
May 2007 to discontinue the inheritance proceedings.
On
7 July 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the constitutional
complaint admissible.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained that the length of the inheritance proceedings
had been incompatible with the “reasonable time”
requirement. She further complained that her right to a fair trial
within the proceedings on her action of 23 December 1996 had been
violated. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which in
its relevant part provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ...hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
Admissibility
1. As regards the length of the inheritance proceedings
The
Government argued that the Constitutional Court by its judgment of 8
June 2006 had provided the applicant with preventive and compensatory
redress. The Government considered this redress adequate and
sufficient.
The
applicant disagreed.
The
Court observes that the applicant's status as a victim depends on
whether the redress afforded to her 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 October
1992 by lodging an appeal against the inheritance settlement.
Subsequently, the proceedings were pending before the Bratislava City
Court and the Supreme Court. At the end of 1994 the Bratislava City
Court transferred the case to the Bratislava I District Court. Thus,
at the time of the Constitutional Court's decision of 8 June 2006 the
proceedings had exceeded 13 years and 8 months at three levels of
jurisdiction.
The
Court takes into consideration the fact that the applicant's
constitutional complaint was only directed at the proceedings before
the Bratislava I District Court (see also Solárová
and Others v. Slovakia, no. 77690/01, § 42, 5
December 2006 and Judt v. Slovakia, no. 70985/01, § 61,
9 October 2007, with further reference).
The
Constitutional Court awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR
1,325 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”.
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.
2. As regards the applicant's right to a fair trial in the
proceedings concerning her action of 23 December 1996
To the extent that the applicant complained about a
violation of her right to a fair trial in the proceedings concerning
her action of 23 December 1996 the Court reiterates that it
is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly
committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have
infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, for
example, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01,
§ 83, ECHR 2007-..., with further reference). The domestic
courts are best placed to assess the relevance of evidence to the
issues in the case and to interpret and apply the rules of
substantive and procedural law (see, among other authorities, Vidal
v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B,
and Sarak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 21568/05, 31 March
2009).
Having
examined the proceedings as a whole, the Court does not find it
established that they were in any way unfair or tainted by
arbitrariness. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under
Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention
as being manifestly ill-founded.
Merits
The
applicant argued that the inheritance proceedings had lasted an
excessively long time both prior to and after the Constitutional
Court's judgment.
The
Government, with reference to the Constitutional Court's judgment,
admitted that the complaint was not unsubstantiated. However, no
further delays in the proceedings imputable to the State had occurred
in the period after the Constitutional Court's decision.
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 the proceedings had been stayed from 15 May 1997
until 8 November 2004, pending the outcome of a different set of
proceedings in which a preliminary issue had to be determined.
Since the documents at the Court's disposal indicate that the outcome
of the latter set of proceedings was directly decisive for the
determination of the applicant's claim, those proceedings must also
be taken into account in order to establish whether the overall
length of the proceedings complained of was reasonable (see, mutatis
mutandis, Probstmeier v. Germany, judgment of 1 July
1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV, §§
46, 48 and 52, with further references). The Court further notes that
after the delivery of the Constitutional Court's judgment the
proceedings lasted almost one year during which the Bratislava I
District Court obtained an ownership certificate and discontinued the
proceedings. The whole proceedings thus lasted 14 years, 7 months and
21 days at three levels of jurisdiction.
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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
The
applicant also complained that her right to peaceful enjoyment of her
possessions had been violated as a result of the dismissal of her
claim of 23 December 1996. She relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
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 this part of the application is 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.”
A. Damage
The
applicant claimed EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for
the violation of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time and
EUR 8,000 for the alleged violation of her right to a fair hearing
and of her right to protection of property.
The
Government contested these claims.
The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage as far as the violation of her right to a hearing within a
reasonable time is concerned. Ruling on an equitable basis and noting
the partial redress which the applicant obtained at the domestic
level, it awards her EUR 4,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses within the
given time-limit.
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 inheritance 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
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 4,000 (four
thousand 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 January 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
