European Court of Human Rights

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF PALGUTOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA

 

(Application no. 25368/10)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

 

19 February 2013

 

 

 

This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.




In the case of Palgutová v. Slovakia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Luis López Guerra, President,
          Ján Šikuta,
          Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 29 January 2013,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE




  The case originated in an application (no. 25368/10) 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 a Slovak national, Ms Mária Palgutová (“the applicant”), on 19 April 2010.




  The applicant was represented by Ms E. Ľalíková, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.




  On 20 May 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A.  Civil proceedings




  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bratislava.




  In 1993 the applicant’s husband died in a road traffic accident caused by a person who was in 1995 convicted of an offence of bodily harm.




  On 16 October 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava V District Court. She claimed compensation for her maintenance from the person responsible for the accident.




  On 3 December 2001 an insurance company informed the District Court that it wished to join the proceedings as a third party.




  On 9 December 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment in which it partially granted the applicant’s claim.




  The applicant and the insurance company appealed.




  On 24 February 2005 the case file was submitted to the Bratislava Regional Court for a decision on the appeals.




  On 22 September 2005 the Regional Court held a hearing.




  On 29 September 2005 it granted the applicant’s appeal and rejected the appeal of the insurance company.




  On 24 November 2005 the Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court for the service of its judgment.




  On 30 December 2005 the insurance company appealed on points of law.




  On 31 January 2007 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s judgment as far as it concerned the appeal of the insurance company and its costs of the proceedings and remitted the case to the Regional Court for a new determination.




  On 18 April 2007 the Regional Court received the case file and on 25 April 2007 it scheduled a hearing for 31 January 2008.




  Subsequently the Regional Court had requested in vain competent authorities to establish the defendant’s whereabouts.




  In February 2008 the defendant’s legal representative informed the Regional Court that he had no knowledge of the defendant’s place of residence.




  On 9 May 2008 the Regional Court scheduled a hearing for 30 April 2009 and on 24 April 2009 appointed a guardian to represent the defendant in the proceedings.




  On 24 September 2009 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment as far as it concerned the appeal of the insurance company and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs and expenses.




  On 9 November 2009 the Regional Court sent the case file to the District Court to serve the judgment on the parties. The judgment became final on 25 November 2009.

B.  Constitutional proceedings




  On 21 January 2003 the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings to the Constitutional Court.




  In its finding of 29 October 2003 the Constitutional Court held that the Bratislava V District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay. It ordered the District Court to proceed with the case and to compensate for the costs of the applicant’s representation in the constitutional proceedings. It decided not to grant any just satisfaction to the applicant on account that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings.




  In 2009 the applicant repeatedly turned to the Constitutional Court claiming that the proceedings in issue pending before the Regional Court were delayed.




  On 28 October 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible and on 20 January 2010 decided that the applicant’s right had not been violated. Referring to the applicant’s complaint directed exclusively against the Regional Court, the Constitutional Court examined only the period after the case file had been transmitted to the Regional Court for the decision on the appeals lodged by the parties. It found that the case had not been complex and the applicant by her conduct had not contributed to the duration of the proceedings. It further held despite the period when the Regional Court had scheduled a hearing in April 2007 for 31 January 2008, the conduct of the Regional Court could not be considered as resulting in unjustified delays.

C.  The proceedings before the Court




  On 17 May 2005 the Court found that the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated (see Palgutová v. Slovakia, no. 9818/02, 17 May 2005). The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted, at that time, nine years and more than six months at two levels of jurisdiction (Palgutová, cited above, § 46). It awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained and EUR 500 for costs and expenses for the proceedings before the Court.

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 referred to the Constitutional Court’s finding that there had been no violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. In their submission, the applicant’s complaint was therefore manifestly ill-founded.




  The period to be taken into consideration began on 17 May 2005 when the Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time with respect to the proceedings in issue (see Palgutová, cited above). They ended on 25 November 2009, namely after four years and more than six months at two levels of jurisdiction. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time elapsed after the Court’s judgment, account must be taken of the total length of the proceedings. In this respect, the Court recalls that the proceedings had started on 16 October 1995 when the applicant lodged her civil claim. Their whole duration thus was fourteen years and more than one month at three levels of jurisdiction.




  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.




  The Court observes that the applicant claimed maintenance after death of her husband caused by the defendant. The outcome of the proceedings was accordingly of significant importance for her every day life. The Court notes that the case was not complex and the applicant did not contribute to the delays in the proceedings. It is also relevant that when the period under consideration started the proceedings had already been pending for more than ten years and after the Court had found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time.




  Moreover, the Court notes that during the period under consideration the Regional Court scheduled four hearings. The second hearing was held on 31 January 2008 which is more than nine months after the Regional Court had received the case file from the Supreme Court. The Court further notes that on 9 May 200 the Regional Court scheduled the third hearing for no obvious reason one year later, namely for 30 April 2009. The last hearing on which the Regional Court gave its judgment took place only some five months later.




  In the light of the above and taking note of what was at stake for the applicant, 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.  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 6,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.




  The Government found the claim to be overstated.




  The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards her EUR 2,500 under that head.

B.  Costs and expenses




  The applicant also claimed EUR 1,200 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.




  The Government left the matter to the Court’s discretion.




  The Court observes that the applicant submitted a legal fees agreement with her lawyer stating that she was under an obligation to pay twenty percent of the sum awarded by the Court in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus the value added tax of twenty percent. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 500 under this head.

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

1.  Declares the application admissible;

 

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

 

3.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts:

(i)  EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 500 (five 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;

 

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 February 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

  Marialena Tsirli                                                                 Luis López Guerra
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President