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 >>
TNS s.r.o. v. SLOVAKIA - 15702/10 [2012] ECHR 913 (31 May 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/913.html
Cite as:
[2012] ECHR 913
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF TNS s.r.o. v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 15702/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
31 May
2012
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of TNS s.r.o. v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Ineta Ziemele, President,
Ján
Šikuta,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and
Marialena Tsirli, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 10 May 2012,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 15702/10) 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 TNS s.r.o., a limited
liability company with its registered office in Dubnica nad Váhom.
2. The
applicant was represented by Ms Z. ČíZová, a
lawyer practising in Bánovce nad Bebravou. The
Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
On
29 August 2011 the
application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
On
10 April 2006 the applicant company sued a different company for a
sum of money before the Bardejov District Court. In May 2006 the
applicant company paid the court fee. In July 2006 it modified its
claim.
The
District Court held the first hearing on 31 October 2006. On
6 December 2006 the defendant company submitted its
observations. On 19 November 2007, 17 January 2008 and 15 April
2008 the case was adjourned at the request of the defendant’s
representative.
The
second hearing was held on 7 May 2008. In June and September 2008 the
applicant company asked for the proceedings to be accelerated.
On
2 October 2008 the case was assigned to a different judge. A hearing
which was scheduled for 22 January 2009 was adjourned at the request
of the defendant’s representative. Another hearing was
scheduled for 12 March 2009.
On
9 April 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant
company’s request about the duration of the proceedings. It
held that, despite a shorter period of inactivity, there had been no
significant delays in the proceedings in breach of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and its constitutional equivalent. The decision
stated that the applicant company had modified its action, that it
had submitted documentary evidence in the course of the proceedings,
and that it had also limited the court in scheduling of hearings.
Further
hearings before the District Court were held on 8 June 2009 and 9
September 2009. On the latter date it delivered a judgment against
which the defendant appealed on 29 October 2009.
The
file was submitted to the Prešov Regional
Court on 27 November 2009. On 9 February 2010 the court of
appeal quashed the first-instance judgment. The decision was served
on parties on 24 March 2010.
On
15 July 2010 the applicant asked for the case to be proceeded with.
Hearings before the District Court were scheduled for 21 September
2010 and 13 December 2010. They were adjourned at the request of the
defendant’s representative.
The
District Court heard the parties on 5 April 2011. Subsequently the
parties submitted documentary evidence. Another hearing was held on
23 June 2011. In July 2011 and September 2011 the parties submitted
further observations and evidence. The District Court scheduled a
hearing for 13 December 2011.
On
13 January 2012 the Government informed the Court that the
proceedings were pending.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant company 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 contested that argument.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 10 April 2006 and has
not yet ended. It has thus lasted six years for two levels of
jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
The
Government argued that there had been no delays contrary to Article 6
§ 1 in the period covered by the Constitutional Court’s
decision of 9 April 2009. As regards the subsequent period, it was
open to the applicant to seek redress by means of a fresh
constitutional complaint. In any event, the length of the proceedings
was imputable mainly to the defendant’s conduct.
In
view of the documents before it the Court considers that the
applicant company did not obtain appropriate redress following its
complaint to the Constitutional Court. It was therefore not required
to file a second complaint to the Constitutional Court in respect of
the subsequent period (see also Becová
v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007, with further
references). Accordingly, the Government’s objection must be
dismissed.
The
Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) 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 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,
notwithstanding the fact that it was in part imputable to the
conduct of the defendant, 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 33,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
The
Government left the matter to the Court’s discretion.
The
Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
B. Costs and expenses
Submitting
documentary evidence, the applicant also claimed EUR 292.38 for
the costs and expenses incurred before the Constitutional Court and
EUR 719.52 for those incurred before the Court.
The
Government left the matter to the Court’s discretion.
Regard
being had to the documents in its possession and to its case law,
the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,000
covering costs under all heads.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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,
the following amounts:
(i) EUR
3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
1,000 (one thousand 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 31 May 2012, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena Tsirli Ineta Ziemele
Deputy Registrar President
