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 >> ZIROVNICKÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC - 10092/13 (Judgment : Article 6 - Right to a fair trial : First Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 144 (08 February 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2018/144.html
Cite as: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0208JUD001009213, CE:ECHR:2018:0208JUD001009213, [2018] ECHR 144
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ŽIROVNICKÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
(Application no. 10092/13 and six other applications - see list appended)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 February 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Žirovnický v. the Czech Republic,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Aleš Pejchal,
Jovan Ilievski, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2018,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in seven applications (nos. 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 51482/13, 22520/14 and 13258/15) against the Czech Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Czech national, Mr Albert Žirovnický ("the applicant") on different dates (see the Annex).2. The applicant was represented by Mr Patrik Altner, a lawyer practising in Prague. The Czech Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice.3. On 6 October 2015 the applications were communicated to the Government.THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1968 and is serving a prison sentence in Mírov Prison.A. Application no. 10092/13
1. Main proceedings (no. 37 C 51/2004)
5. On 8 April 2004 the applicant initiated civil proceedings for protection of his personality rights ("the main proceedings") against the Czech Republic in the person of the Ministry of Justice (no. 37 C 51/2004). On 28 March 2008 the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) dismissed the applicant's action. The Prague High Court (vrchní soud) dismissed an appeal by the applicant on 20 October 2008 and the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed an appeal on points of law on 15 April 2010.
2. Compensation proceedings (no. 17 C 204/2007)
6. On 12 June 2007 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act (Act no. 82/1998) from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings. As the Ministry did not deal with the applicant's request within the six-month statutory time-limit, he brought a civil action on 18 December 2007 (proceedings no. 17 C 204/2007).7. On 18 December 2009 the Prague 2 District Court (obvodní soud) acknowledged that there had been delays in the main proceedings and awarded the applicant 30,000 Czech korunas (CZK) (1,140 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and dismissed the rest of the claim.8. On 15 September 2010 the Prague Municipal Court amended the lower court's judgment by dismissing the whole financial claim, leaving the rest of the judgment intact. It found that the applicant had not suffered any non-pecuniary damage on account of the unreasonable length of the proceedings.9. On 30 November 2011 the Supreme Court, upon an appeal on points of law by the applicant, quashed the Municipal Court's judgment and remitted the case to it. On 11 April 2012 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant's claim for financial compensation but acknowledged that his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time had been violated in the main proceedings. Given the high number of lawsuits brought by the applicant, the court concluded that the finding of a violation was sufficient redress for the non-pecuniary damage caused to him. The court also saw no need to award him damages on account of the length of the compensation proceedings, as the applicant had requested, considering that they had not been unreasonably long.10. On 12 August 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant, stating, inter alia:
"The Supreme Court pointed out in its previous cassation judgment in this case that, without providing any further reasons, it cannot be concluded that the fact that a plaintiff has initiated a large number of disputes ... means that the presumption of non-pecuniary damage caused by excessively long proceedings has been rebutted.
...
The fact that an injured person has instigated a large number of judicial disputes can have an impact on his approach to a particular set of proceedings; for example, he may fail to respond to the court's requests on time, pay court fees on time, remedy shortcomings in his submissions on time and such like, thus he may not pay proper attention to the proceedings. Such conduct may show that the subject matter of the proceedings is of lesser importance for the injured person and it may be taken into consideration under the criterion of the injured person's conduct.... Nonetheless, even if there are no such circumstances on the part of the injured person, it is not possible to wholly ignore the fact that the plaintiff has initiated a large number of judicial disputes. It puts him in a different position as regards the perception of the degree of damage caused by the excessive length of one of the disputes compared to the position of a person participating in only one or only a few judicial proceedings (compare, in similar terms, the European Court of Human Rights inadmissibility decision in the case of Havelka v. the Czech Republic, of 20 September 2011, applications nos. 7332/10, 42666/10 and 61523/10, and the decision of the Supreme Court of 4 June 2013, no. 30 Cdo 1042/2013).
As to the appellant's complaint that the court of appeal should have taken the length of the compensation proceedings themselves into account when determining redress, it must be admitted that the base amount of compensation can indeed be increased if compensation proceedings are themselves excessively long and a plaintiff requests an increase in compensation on those grounds (part VI. of the Supreme Court's opinion of 13 April 2011, no. Cpjn 206/2010 ...). However, in its judgment of 14 November 2011, no. 30 Cdo 3340/2011, the Supreme Court added that if in the proceedings concerned the procedure under Article 118 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) has been followed, the application of the possibility to increase compensation is limited by the rules for submitting new facts and modifying the initial action in the proceedings before the court of first instance; the same applies in similar fashion to appeal proceedings (see Article 205a § 1 and Article 2016 § 2 of the CCP). Thus, an injured person has to raise an objection about the length of compensation proceedings pending the effects of concentration in the particular proceedings. In the present case, the appellant raised a claim for compensation for the length of the compensation proceedings only in the course of the proceedings before the appellate court, in a submission of 11 April 2012 (file page 128) ... so it was an inadmissible new claim."
11. On 24 April 2014 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed a constitutional complaint (ústavní stížnost) by the applicant.
12. In the meantime, the applicant initiated proceedings for compensation (no. 23 C 149/2012) for non-pecuniary damage for the excessive length of the first set of compensation proceedings (no. 17 C 204/2007). He later began proceedings for compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the second set of compensation proceedings too (no. 22 C 204/2015).B. Application no. 20708/13
1. Main proceedings (no. 18 C 84/2006)
13. On 19 September 2003 the applicant brought a civil action against the Czech Republic-Ministry of the Interior before the Prague 7 District Court under the State Liability Act. He claimed compensation for an allegedly illegal search of his house on 6 March 2001.14. On 4 November 2004 he was asked to remedy shortcomings in his action, which he did on 16 November 2004.15. On 21 March 2005 the District Court decided the case was not in its jurisdiction and referred it to the Prague 2 District Court. Following an appeal by the applicant, the Prague Municipal Court upheld the jurisdiction decision on 20 December 2005.16. On 24 January 2007 the District Court appointed a legal representative for the applicant. On 6 June and 20 September 2007 and 4 January 2008 the applicant supplemented his action.17. On 26 March 2008 the District Court asked the Prague 3 District Court to send it the criminal case file concerning the house search at issue.18. The District Court dismissed the applicant's action on 21 December 2009 after a hearing on 16 December 2009.19. On 26 October 2011 the Prague Municipal Court upheld that decision.20. On 27 January 2012 the applicant appealed on points of law. On 7 February 2012 he filed a constitutional complaint, which was rejected as premature by the Constitutional Court on 29 May 2012. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal on points of law on 11 November 2015, referring, inter alia, to a decision by the Court on the same matter, which had found the complaint manifestly ill-founded (see Žirovnický v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 7022/06, 5 October 2010).21. The applicant subsequently renewed his complaint to the Constitutional Court but it was dismissed on 15 March 2016.2. Compensation proceedings (no. 30 C 178/2009)
22. On 8 June 2007 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings (no. 18 C 84/2006). As the Ministry did not deal with his request within the six-month statutory time-limit, on 9 December 2007 he brought a civil action before the Prague 7 District Court seeking CZK 8,315.84 (EUR 318) in compensation.23. On 20 January 2012 the District Court dismissed the action, considering that the main proceedings had not been unreasonably long.24. On 12 December 2012 the Prague Municipal Court upheld the judgment, finding that although the main proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time the applicant could not be awarded compensation because of the lack of significance of the proceedings for him. According to the court, the applicant had abused his right of access to a court by initiating a very large number of legal disputes against the State.25. On 18 February 2015 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Municipal Court. It noted that even if the applicant had abused his right of access to a court, unreasonably long proceedings might still cause him damage which had to be compensated for by at least a finding of a violation.26. On 14 September 2015 the Municipal Court modified the District Court's judgment by finding a violation of the applicant's right to have his case heard within a reasonable time in the operative part of the judgment. The court refused to deal with a new complaint by the applicant about the length of the compensation proceedings.27. On 27 November 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which is apparently still under consideration.28. In the meantime, the applicant initiated proceedings for compensation (no. 12 C 301/2011) for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the initial compensation proceedings and then proceedings for compensation for delays in that second case (no. 22 C 141/2015).C. Application no. 22455/13
1. Main proceedings (no. 34 C 126/2004)
29. On 15 September 2003 the applicant brought an action for damages against the Czech Republic-Ministry of the Interior before the Prague 7 District Court, alleging that he had suffered damage in connection with a "terrorist attack" on his family by police officers on 6 March 2001.30. On 28 July 2004 the case was referred to the Prague Municipal Court as the court competent to deal with it at the first instance.31. After several decisions on exemption from court fees, the appointment of a legal representative for the applicant and several attempts by the court to procure the related criminal case files, a hearing was held on 28 March 2008, following which the Municipal Court dismissed the action.32. On 25 November 2008 the Prague High Court upheld the judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant on 31 August 2010.2. Compensation proceedings (no. 27 C 325/2007)
33. On 6 June 2007 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings, no. 34 C 126/2004. As the Ministry did not deal with the applicant's request within the statutory time-limit, he brought a civil action before the Prague 2 District Court on 13 December 2007, seeking EUR 4,229.64 in compensation.34. On 18 March 2010 the District Court dismissed his action, acknowledging that the main proceedings had been unreasonably long, but seeing no necessity to award him financial compensation.35. On 16 December 2010 the Prague Municipal Court quashed the judgment, finding it non-reviewable for lack of reasoning, and remitted the case to the District Court. In a judgment of 21 March 2012, the District Court found a violation of the applicant's right to have his case heard within a reasonable time in the operative part of the judgment and dismissed the action regarding financial compensation. According to the court, the finding of a violation constituted adequate redress. It found that awarding him financial compensation would be against good morals, given the circumstances of the case, namely the applicant's conduct in the main proceedings, the conduct of the courts, the importance of the subject matter of the proceedings for the applicant as well as his character, his relation towards the State and society and his lack of respect for the rights of others.36. On 6 December 2012 the Municipal Court upheld the judgment.37. On 29 September 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant. A subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded by the Constitutional Court on 19 February 2015.38. Following a plea of nullity by the applicant, the Municipal Court on 10 April 2015 quashed its judgment of 6 December 2012 on the grounds that the applicant had not been able to attend a hearing at the court.39. On 19 November 2015 the Municipal Court issued a new judgment, modifying the District Court's judgment by awarding the applicant CZK 32,400 (EUR 1,200). It found that the length of the compensation proceedings meant that a mere finding of a violation of his rights no longer constituted adequate redress. Having regard to the overall length of the main proceedings, the Municipal Court determined the sum to be awarded to the applicant (CZK 108,000 - EUR 4,000) and then adjusted it with regard to the length of the compensation proceedings (+20%), procedural difficulties in the main proceedings (-30%) and the importance of what had been at stake for him (-40%).
40. It appears that the compensation proceedings are still ongoing.41. The applicant instituted a further two sets of proceedings related to the compensation claim: one to seek compensation for non-pecuniary damage for delays in the initial compensation proceedings (no. 23 C 163/2012) and one for compensation for the excessive length of that second set of compensation proceedings (no. 29 C 215/2015).D. Application no. 61245/13
1. Main proceedings (no. 5 Ca 176/2004, later no. 5 Ca 329/2006)
42. On 15 October 2004 the applicant brought an administrative action against the Ministry of Justice before the Prague Municipal Court, seeking the annulment of Ministry of Justice Decree no. 345/1999 on the rules for imprisonment (vyhláška Ministerstva spravedlnosti, kterou se vydává řád výkonu trestu odnětí svobody) and the internal rules of Plzeň Prison.43. On 11 March 2005 the Municipal Court rejected his action for lack of competence.44. Following a cassation complaint (kasační stížnost) by the applicant, the Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud) quashed the judgment on 20 September 2006 and remitted the case to the Municipal Court. It found that the applicant's action should have been dismissed (zamítnuta) rather than rejected (odmítnuta).45. After several decisions on the appointment of a legal representative for the applicant in 2007, the Municipal Court dismissed the action on 30 September 2008.46. On 5 March 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a cassation complaint by the applicant.2. Compensation proceedings (no. 26 C 58/2008)
47. On 10 October 2007 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings (no. 5 Ca 176/2004, later no. 5 Ca 329/2006). As the Ministry did not deal with the applicant's request within the statutory time-limit, he brought a civil action before the Prague 2 District Court on 10 April 2008, seeking EUR 3,487.77 in compensation.48. On 11 May 2009 the District Court dismissed the action, considering that the overall length of the proceedings at issue had not been unreasonable despite one particular delay, particularly because the applicant had in fact known the result of the proceedings after the Supreme Administrative Court's first judgment of September 2006.49. On 17 February 2010 the Municipal Court upheld the judgment, holding that a finding of a violation of the applicant's rights would be sufficient compensation for the one delay in the main proceedings.50. On 22 November 2011 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Municipal Court, stating that the finding of a violation should have been set out in the operative part of the judgment.51. In a judgment of 18 April 2012 the Municipal Court found a violation of the applicant's right to have his case heard without unnecessary delays in the operative part of the judgment. It found that the length of the main proceedings had been unreasonable, given that the case had not been complex. However, it found that the finding of a violation would provide adequate redress, given the lack of importance of what was at stake for the applicant and the fact that he must have known the result of the proceedings as soon as the Supreme Administrative Court had issued its first judgment. The court considered the finding of a violation to be adequate redress, even taking into account the length of the compensation proceedings themselves.52. On 29 November 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant. On 29 May 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint as manifestly ill-founded.53. In the meantime, the applicant initiated proceedings (no. 15 C 244/2012) for compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the initial compensation proceedings. He later made a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage from the excessive length of the latter compensation proceedings too (no. 17 C 146/2015).E. Application no. 61482/13
1. Main proceedings (no. 10 Ca 10/2005, later no. 10 Ca 400/2006)
54. On 12 October 2004 the applicant brought an administrative action against the Prison Service (vězeňská služba) and the Ministry of Justice, challenging decisions on a disciplinary penalty (a reprimand) that had been imposed on him and the failure of the Ministry of Justice to decide on a complaint by him about a violation of regulations by Prison Service staff.55. After exempting the applicant from court fees, appointing a lawyer to represent him and seeking necessary clarification of the action, on 19 October 2006 the Prague Municipal Court found the action in respect of the disciplinary decisions inadmissible, severing the part of the action concerning the Ministry of Justice's alleged failure to act.56. On 10 May 2007 the Municipal Court dismissed the latter part of the action, finding that the Ministry had not been obliged to deal with the applicant's complaint in administrative proceedings.57. On 31 January 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a cassation complaint by the applicant. On 21 May 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint as manifestly ill-founded.2. Compensation proceedings (no. 19 C 85/2008)
58. On 30 October 2007 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings (no. 10 Ca 10/2005). As the Ministry did not deal with the applicant's request within the statutory time-limit, he brought a civil action before the Prague 2 District Court on 6 May 2008, seeking EUR 3,412.69 in compensation.59. On 11 May 2009 the District Court dismissed the action, finding that the main proceedings had not been unreasonably long.60. On 6 January 2010 the Prague Municipal Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the District Court since it had failed to also consider proceedings no. 10 Ca 400/2006.61. On 14 June 2010 the District Court again dismissed the action, finding that the main proceedings, nos. 10 Ca 10/2005 and 10 Ca 400/2006, had not been unreasonably long.62. On 19 January 2011 the Municipal Court upheld the judgment. Although, contrary to the District Court, it considered that the main proceeding had been unreasonably long, it held that finding a violation was sufficient redress.63. On 30 January 2013 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Municipal Court. The latter court on 17 June 2013 modified the District Court's judgment by setting out a violation of the applicant's right to have his case heard within a reasonable time in the operative part of the judgment. It did not find that the length of the compensation proceedings had been unreasonable.64. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which is apparently still ongoing.65. In the meantime, the applicant initiated two other cases for compensation for non-pecuniary damage from delayed proceedings: one related to delays in the initial compensation proceedings (no. 15 C 139/2012) and one related to delays in that further compensation proceedings (no. 14 C 154/2015).F. Application no. 22520/14
1. Main proceedings (no. 10 C 49/2008)
66. On 13 December 2007 the applicant sent a request for compensation of CZK 300,000 (EUR 11,430) under the State Liability Act to the Ministry of the Interior. He stated that he had suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of irregular official conduct by police officers who, on 27 June 2007, had taken a DNA sample by way of a cheek swab, without authority to do so and under the threat of force.
67. On 7 January 2008 the Ministry rejected the request. On 31 January 2008 the applicant brought an action for damages against the Ministry of the Interior before the Prague 7 District Court.68. On 4 December 2008 the District Court rejected the action as time-barred. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 5 August 2009 the Prague Municipal Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the District Court, finding an erroneous assessment of the statutory limitation period.69. On 23 March 2010 the District Court delivered a new judgment, dismissing the action for compensation. It admitted that there had been irregularities in the actions of the police officers when taking the applicant's DNA samples, but found that he had not suffered any damage.70. On 27 October 2010 the Municipal Court upheld the judgment, although with different reasoning. It considered that the finding of a violation was adequate redress for the damage caused to the applicant.71. On 28 February 2013 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Municipal Court. It stated that the Municipal Court "should not overlook" the Supreme Court's case-law regarding the statutory limitation of a claim. Consequently, on 20 November 2013 the Municipal Court delivered a new judgment, dismissing the applicant's action as time-barred.72. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. On 13 November 2014 the Supreme Court discontinued proceedings on that appeal as the applicant's lawyer had failed to submit it properly within the statutory time-limit.
73. On 19 October 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected a constitutional complaint by the applicant on the grounds that he was not represented by a lawyer. It also observed that the applicant did not want to pursue the complaint.
2. Compensation proceedings (no. 23 C 108/2012)
74. On 23 December 2011 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings no. 10 C 49/2008.75. On 10 May 2012 the Ministry rejected the applicant's claim, finding no delays in the main proceedings and considering their overall length as reasonable. On 30 May 2012 the applicant brought a civil action against the Ministry, seeking EUR 4,549.14 in compensation.76. After several attempts by the court to procure the relevant case file (no. 10 C 49/2008), a hearing was held on 22 September 2015. The District Court dismissed the action on the same day, finding that the length of the main proceedings had been reasonable in the circumstances of the case.77. According to the Government, the applicant filed an appeal on 6 November 2015, which is apparently still ongoing.78. In the meantime, the applicant initiated proceedings for compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the initial compensation proceedings (no. 19 C 149/2015).G. Application no. 13258/15
1. Main proceedings (no. 34 C 138/2006)
79. On 7 November 2006 the applicant brought an action for protection of his personality rights against a newspaper publisher and the Czech Republic-Ministry of Justice.80. After an amendment of the action and several decisions on exempting the applicant from court fees, on 8 December 2008 the Prague Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings against the Czech Republic.81. On 24 March 2009 the Municipal Court dismissed the action.82. On 10 November 2009 the Prague High Court modified the judgment, awarding the applicant CZK 100,000 (EUR 3,920).83. On 22 December 2011 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the High Court, which upheld the Municipal Court's judgment on 15 May 2012.84. On 6 August 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which is apparently still under consideration.85. On 30 August 2012 the applicant lodged a plea of nullity against the High Court's judgment, asserting that he had not been able to attend a hearing. Apparently, those proceedings are still ongoing.2. Compensation proceedings (no. 15 C 184/2012)
86. On 14 February 2012 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings.87. On 20 August 2012 the Ministry rejected the applicant's claim, finding no delays in the main proceedings. On 23 August 2012 the applicant brought a civil action against the Ministry, seeking EUR 5,774.37 in compensation.88. On 18 January 2013 the Prague 2 District Court awarded the applicant CZK 54,250 (EUR 2,120) and dismissed the rest of the action. It considered that the main proceedings had been unreasonably long, taking into consideration that they had concerned the applicant's personality rights.89. On 1 October 2013 the Prague Municipal Court modified the judgment by finding a violation of the applicant's right to have his case heard within a reasonable time but dismissing his claim for financial compensation. Having regard to the fact that the applicant had brought a number of actions, overloading the court system in the Czech Republic by such actions, the court concluded that the finding of a violation constituted adequate redress for non-pecuniary damage.
90. On 20 August 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant on points of law. It emphasised that if a plaintiff initiated a large number of legal cases then the strength of his feelings towards the damage caused by the unreasonable length of one of those sets of proceedings was different to someone who had participated in only one or a few sets of proceedings.91. The Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint by the applicant as manifestly ill-founded on 18 December 2014.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Legislation
92. The relevant domestic law concerning remedies for excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the relevant parts of the State Liability Act no. 82/1998, are set out in the Court's decision in the case of Vokurka v. the Czech Republic (dec.) (no. 40552/02, §§ 11-24, 16 October 2007).93. Article 118b of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act no. 99/1963) provides for the principle of concentration of proceedings. It sets out that parties to proceedings must disclose material facts and specify the evidence for them before the end of the pre-trial stage (if that procedure takes place), the end of the first trial hearing or by the end of any other time-limit set by the court for parties to complement the relevant facts, file submissions for evidence or comply with other procedural duties. A court can only have regard to any facts and evidence submitted after that time if the facts or evidence are intended to challenge the credibility of evidence already adduced, if they arose after the pre-trial or first trial hearing, if they were not submitted in time through no fault of the party concerned, or if they were submitted at the court's request.B. Case-law of the Constitutional Court
94. In judgment no. II. ÚS 862/10 of 19 May 2010, the Constitutional Court quashed a case and remitted it to the Prague Municipal Court. It noted, with reference to the Court's judgment in Apicella v. Italy ([GC], no. 64890/01, 29 March 2006), that in its new examination of the case the Municipal Court "should also take into consideration the length of the proceedings in awarding just satisfaction for delays in the original proceedings since otherwise, according to the Court's case-law, the action (for compensation) could not be regarded as an effective remedy if the (compensation) proceedings lasted 2/3 of the period of the delayed original proceedings".
95. In several subsequent judgments the Constitutional Court further endorsed the requirement to take into account the length of compensation proceedings themselves when deciding on compensation for damage caused by delays in the original proceeding (under section 31a (3) of Act no. 82/1998); in particular, in judgments nos. I. ÚS 562/11 of 21 June 2011, IV. 1572/11 of 6 March 2012, and I. ÚS 1599/13 of 7 April 2015.C. Case-law of the Supreme Court
96. In opinion no. Cpjn 206/2010 of 13 April 2010, the Supreme Court set out the fundamental rules for adjudicating on claims for compensation for excessive length of proceedings. It noted, inter alia, that any unreasonably long compensation proceedings could be taken into consideration when determining the base amount of compensation (per year of excessively long main proceedings) and that the base amount might be increased on those grounds if the claimant so requested.
97. In judgment no. 30 Cdo 3340/2011 of 14 November 2011, the Supreme Court added that the possibility to increase the amount of compensation on the grounds of unreasonably long compensation proceedings was not applicable to appeals or appeals on points of law given the limits for submitting new facts and modifying the initial action in proceedings at first instance, provided that the procedure under Article 118b §§ 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been followed.
98. In judgment no. 4539/2011 of 30 January 2013, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that "the base amount for a relevant period can only be increased where the compensation proceedings themselves are excessively long and the plaintiff requests an increase in compensation on those grounds pending the effects of concentration in the particular proceedings".99. The same view was taken in the Supreme Court's subsequent case-law, particularly in decisions nos. 30 Cdo 4398/2013 of 18 June 2014, 30 Cdo 1098/2014 of 30 September 2014 and 30 Cdo 221/2015 of 17 June 2015. Those decisions were challenged before the Constitutional Court, which dismissed the complaints at issue (decisions nos. II. ÚS 3235/14 of 13 January 2015, I. ÚS 3902/14 of 11 August 2015, and II. ÚS 2711/15 of 24 November 2015).
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF APPLICATIONS
100. The Court considers that given their common factual and legal background the applications should be joined in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.II. THE SCOPE OF THE CASE
101. The Court considers it necessary to clarify, at the outset, the scope of the case and its examination of the complaints.102. It observes that the applicant's seven applications have focused in particular on the issue of the length of proceedings, in respect of both the main and the compensation proceedings in question, as well as the more general issue of the ineffectiveness of the compensatory remedy under the State Liability Act.103. In their additional observations the Government submitted that the applicant had explicitly narrowed the scope of his applications by stating that the issue of the effectiveness of the remedy under the State Liability Act was the sole subject of his applications.104. The Court considers that although the applicant in his observations indeed focused on the issue of the effectiveness of the remedy, he made it clear in the end that his applications covered both the main proceedings and the compensation proceedings and requested that the Court find violations of the Convention with respect to both.105. The Court thus finds that the present applications concern particularly the issue of the length of the main and compensation proceedings.106. It further notes that in complaining about the length of the compensation proceedings the applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see, among other authorities, Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; and, in the context of length-of-proceedings cases, Beggs v. the United Kingdom, no. 25133/06, § 205, 6 November 2012, or Chuykina v. Ukraine, no. 28924/04, § 31, 13 January 2011) and, having regard to its previous case-law, (in particular, Hajrudinović v. Slovenia, no. 69319/12, 21 May 2015, and Gagliano Giorgi v. Italy, no. 23563/07, ECHR 2012 (extracts)), finds it appropriate to examine this complaint under both Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 separately. The Court will also consider the applicant's arguments challenging the effectiveness of the compensatory remedy under the State Liability Act under the latter Article.III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
107. The applicant complained that the length of both the main proceedings and the compensation proceedings in this case had violated the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of 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
1. The main proceedings
(a) Non-compliance with the six-month rule
108. In observations sent to the Court on 19 April 2016, the applicant complained for the first time about the length of the main proceedings no. 37 C 51/2004 (see paragraph 5 above), which preceded the compensation proceedings no. 17 C 204/2007, and which constitute the subject matter of his first application, no. 10092/13.109. Having regard to the fact that the proceedings for compensation for alleged non-pecuniary damage from the excessive length of the main proceedings under no. 37 C 51/2004 were concluded by the Constitutional Court's judgment of 24 April 2014 (see paragraph 11 above), the complaint about the length of the main proceedings lodged on 19 April 2016 must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-compliance with the six-month rule.(b) Lack of a significant disadvantage
110. The Government argued that the applications were inadmissible because the applicant had not suffered a significant disadvantage within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention. They alleged that the main proceedings initiated by the applicant had in fact concerned petty disputes which had not been of great significance for him and that he, on the contrary, had aimed to prolong them.111. The applicant disagreed.112. Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention provides as follows:"3. The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that: (...)
(b) the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal."
113. The Court notes that the main element of the criterion set by this provision is whether the applicant has suffered any significant disadvantage (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; and Kudlička v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 21588/12, 3 March 2015). Inspired by the general principle of de minimis non curat praetor, this admissibility criterion is based on the idea that a violation of a right, however real from a purely legal point of view, should attain a minimum level of severity to warrant consideration by an international court. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative, and depends on all the circumstances of the case. The severity of a violation should be assessed taking into account both the applicant's subjective perceptions and what is objectively at stake in a particular case (see Korolev, cited above).114. The Court has already applied this criterion in a number of cases concerning the length of proceedings. In such cases, the Court has emphasized that the pure financial loss or the amount of the initial claim involved cannot be taken as the sole indication of a "significant disadvantage" but the applicant's subjective perceptions and what was objectively at stake for him ought to be assessed rather in a much more general way, by having regard to all particular circumstances of the given case (see Havelka v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 7332/10, 20 September 2011, or Shefer v. Russia (dec.), no. 45175/04, §§ 21 and 23, 13 March 2012). In the context of the length-of-proceedings cases, the Court has further considered, that in ascertaining whether the violation of a right attains the minimum level of severity, the following factors, inter alia, should be taken into account: the nature of the right allegedly violated, the seriousness of the impact of the alleged violation on the exercise of a right and/or the possible effects of the violation on the applicant's personal situation. In assessing these effects, the Court examines, in particular, what was at stake in the proceedings or their outcome (see Giusti v. Italy, no. 13175/03, § 34, 18 October 2011,and Gagliano Giorgi, cited above, § 56).115. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that in most of the main sets of proceedings the issues at stake were objectively of little importance. In the main proceedings no. 18 C 84/2006 (application no. 20708/13), the applicant claimed compensation for an alleged incorrect house search on the grounds that the order for the search had given a different house number than the applicant's. Moreover, the same complaint has already been examined by the Court, which found it manifestly ill-founded on 5 October 2010 (see Žirovnický v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 7022/06). In the main proceedings no. 5 Ca 176/2004 and 5 Ca 329/2006 (application no. 61245/13) the applicant sought the annulment of imprisonment and prison rules, while in the main proceedings nos. 10 Ca 10/2005 and 10 Ca 400/2006 (application no. 61482/13) he mainly challenged a reprimand he had been given for taking his cell window out of its frame. In the main proceedings no. 10 C 49/2008 (application no. 22520/14) he complained about the taking of DNA by a cheek swab, but not about storing his DNA profile. His claim was considered as being outside the statutory time-limit and, moreover, the applicant did not then pursue his appeal on points of law and constitutional complaint properly.116. In contrast, the Court notes that in the main proceedings no. 34 C 126/2004 (application no. 22455/13) the applicant raised an objectively serious claim of violent conduct by police officers during the house search. However, the subsequent compensation proceedings led to financial redress for the length of the main proceedings (lasting seven years at three levels of jurisdiction) of approximately EUR 1,200 (see paragraph 39), an amount which is close to the level of domestic compensation that could still be sufficient and appropriate for the Court.117. Considering, also, the applicant's subjective perception of the alleged damage suffered in these long main sets of proceedings, the Court cannot disregard the overall context of his extensive use of judicial proceedings. He has launched numerous parallel proceedings at the domestic level and made fifty-two applications to the Court, of which only one has resulted in a judgment so far (compare Havelka, cited above, and Dudek v. Germany (dec.), no. 12977/09 et al., 23 November 2010). In that respect, the Court shares the domestic courts' view (see the quotation from the Supreme Court in paragraph 11) that the applicant's practice of having extensive recourse to judicial proceedings - although in no manner capable of justifying any limitation on his right of access to a court - necessarily affects his perception of the damage arising from the unreasonable length of a set of proceedings, compared with people for whom bringing a lawsuit and participating in judicial proceedings is not an ordinary part of their everyday life.118. Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant has not suffered a "significant disadvantage" in respect of his right to proceedings within a reasonable time in the main proceedings mentioned above (applications nos. 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13 and 22520/14).119. However, the Court cannot reach the same conclusion concerning main proceedings no. 34 C 138/2006 (application no. 13258/15). Over and above the fact that those proceedings are still ongoing, or at least they were as of March 2016, the Court notes that these proceedings concern alleged defamation, and therefore the protection of the applicant's personality rights and reputation. The defendant is also not a public authority, as in the rest of the main proceedings at issue, but a private legal entity. Under those circumstances, even the applicant's extensive involvement in judicial proceedings cannot lead to the conclusion that he has not suffered a significant disadvantage owing to the length of the defamation proceedings.120. Having found a lack of a significant disadvantage on the part of the applicant with respect to the main proceedings at issue in applications nos. 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13 and 22520/14, the Court must now examine the two "safeguard clauses" provided in Article 35 § 3 (b): whether respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits, and whether the case was duly considered by a domestic tribunal.121. Under the first safeguard, the Court is required to continue examining an application if it raises questions of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention.122. The applicant's complaints raise the question of the reasonable length of proceedings, which has been addressed by the Court on numerous occasions, including with respect to the Czech Republic (see, for example, Vokurka, cited above; Antoni v. the Czech Republic, no. 18010/06, 25 November 2010; and Golha v. the Czech Republic, no. 7051/06, 26 May 2011). In those circumstances, the Court considers that respect for human rights does not require the continued examination of these complaints (see also Gagliano Giorgi, cited above, §§ 59-62).123. Lastly, it must examine the second safeguard clause, which was designed to ensure that every case receives a judicial examination, whether at the national level or at the European level, in order to avoid a denial of justice (see Korolev, cited above; Kudlička, cited above; or Gagliano Giorgi, cited above, § 63).124. The Court notes that in all five cases the applicant's complaints about the length of the main proceedings were examined both by the Ministry of Justice and by the competent courts at two, three or four levels of jurisdiction.125. The Court thus finds that the applicant's cases were duly considered by a domestic tribunal within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b).126. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicant's complaints about the length of the main proceedings at issue in applications nos. 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13 and 22520/14 must be declared inadmissible, in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention.(c) Other admissibility criteria
127. The Government alternatively argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention since he had received sufficient redress at the domestic level for the violation of his rights.128. Having regard to the above findings concerning a lack of significant disadvantage on the part of the applicant owing to the length of the main proceedings in applications nos. 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13 and 22520/14, this complaint can be considered only with respect to the main proceedings no. 34 C 138/2006 (application no. 13258/15). As of March 2016 those proceedings were still ongoing, having lasted nine years and four months by that time. In the related compensation proceedings the domestic courts only found a violation of the applicant's rights, but did not award him any financial compensation (see paragraph 89 above). In those circumstances, taking into account the Court's settled case-law concerning the loss of victim status (see, among others, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006-V; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; and Dědič v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 31380/08, 15 May 2011), the Court observes that although the domestic courts explicitly acknowledged an infringement of the Convention (a violation of the applicant's right to have his case heard within a reasonable time), they did not provide him with appropriate and sufficient redress. The applicant can therefore still claim to be a "victim" of the "reasonable time" requirement in the instant case and the Government's objection must be dismissed.2. The compensation proceedings
129. The Government did not make any comment on the admissibility of the complaints concerning the length of the compensation proceedings.130. Nevertheless, the Court cannot fail to notice that compensation proceedings no. 15 C 184/2012 (application no. 13258/15) lasted two years and ten months for the preliminary request and four levels of jurisdiction and that it took one year and eight months to reach a final decision at the court of appeal, excluding the proceedings on the appeal on points of law and the constitutional complaint. That cannot be considered as exceeding the "reasonable time" requirement of Article 6 § 1, even if the special nature of proceedings for compensation for damage resulting from another set of excessively long proceedings is taken into account (compare paragraphs 148-150 below). This complaint must be therefore declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.3. Conclusion as regards admissibility
131. The Court concludes that the applicant's complaints concerning the length of main proceedings nos. 37 C 51/2004, 18 C 84/2006, 34 C 126/2004, 5 Ca 176/2004 and 5 Ca 329/2006, 10 Ca 10/2005 and 10 Ca 400/2006, 10 C 49/2008 (at issue in applications nos. 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13 and 22520/14) and the complaint concerning the length of compensation proceedings no. 15 C 184/2012 (at issue in application no. 13258/15) are inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention on the grounds of non-compliance with the six-month rule, lack of a significant disadvantage and manifest ill-foundedness.132. The remaining complaints concerning the length of main proceedings no. 34 C 138/2006 (application no. 13258/15) and the length of compensation proceedings nos. 17 C 204/2007, 30 C 178/2009, 27 C 325/2007, 26 C 58/2008, 19 C 85/2008 and 23 C 108/2012 (applications nos. 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13 and 22520/14) are neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds and, therefore, must be declared admissible.B. Merits
1. Relevant periods to be taken into account
133. Turning to the determination of the relevant periods to be taken into account with regard to the proceedings at issue, the Court finds that in the case of the compensation proceedings the relevant period begins with bringing a preliminary claim with the Ministry of Justice as that procedure is a prerequisite for bringing court proceedings for compensation (see Mocie v. France, no. 46096/99, § 21, 8 April 2003; X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 31, Series A no. 234-C; and, mutatis mutandis, Schmidtová v. the Czech Republic, no. 48568/99, §§ 54-55, 22 July 2003). The fact that the proceedings before the Ministry of Justice do not have the character of a "dispute" in classical terms does not alter that conclusion.134. The Court notes further that the latest information on the state of individual sets of proceedings was provided by the parties in March 2016.135. In respect of the compensation proceedings in application no. 10092/13, the period to be taken into consideration began on 12 June 2007 and ended on 24 April 2014. It thus lasted six years and ten months from the preliminary request (to the Ministry of Justice) and covered four levels of judicial jurisdiction.
136. In respect of application no. 20708/13, the period to be taken into consideration with regard to the compensation proceedings began on 8 June 2007 and had not yet ended by March 2016. By that month therefore the proceedings had already lasted eight years and nine months for the preliminary request and three levels of jurisdiction.
137. In respect of application no. 22455/13, the period to be taken into consideration with regard to the compensation proceedings began on 6 June 2007 and had not yet ended by March 2016. By that month therefore the proceedings had lasted eight years and nine months for the preliminary request and three levels of jurisdiction.
138. In respect of application no. 61245/13, the period to be taken into consideration with regard to the compensation proceedings began on 10 October 2007 and ended on 29 May 2013, thus lasting five years and eight months for the preliminary request and four levels of jurisdiction.
139. In respect of application no. 61482/13, the period to be taken into consideration with regard to the compensation proceedings began on 30 October 2007 and had not yet finished by March 2016. By that month therefore the proceedings had already lasted eight years and five months for the preliminary request and three levels of jurisdiction.
140. In respect of application no. 22520/14, the period to be taken into consideration with regard to the compensation proceedings began on 23 December 2011 and had not yet ended by March 2016. By that month therefore the proceedings had lasted four years and three months for the preliminary request and two levels of jurisdiction.
141. As to application no. 13258/15, the period to be taken into consideration with regard to the main proceedings began on 7 November 2006 and had not yet ended by March 2016. By that month therefore they had already lasted nine years and four months at three levels of jurisdiction.2. The main proceedings
142. The Government admitted that some delays occurred in the main proceedings no. 34 C 138/2006 (application no. 13258/15) and that their overall length must be viewed as unreasonable. However, they saw no reason to award any compensation to the applicant.143. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of a 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, and Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV).144. 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, or Pieniążek v. Poland, no. 62179/00, 28 September 2004).145. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court observes that there were periods of delay attributable to the domestic authorities in the proceedings and that the issues at stake for the applicant (his reputation) were rather important. In addition, the Government themselves made no argument that the case was particularly complex or that the applicant contributed significantly to prolonging the proceedings. Under those circumstances, and having regard to its relevant case-law, the Court considers that the length of the main proceedings in question was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.146. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
3. The compensation proceedings
147. The Government, being aware of the Court's case-law on this issue, made no argument that the compensation proceedings at issue had met the "reasonable time" requirement. They left it to the Court's discretion to decide whether or not there had been a violation of the applicant's right to a trial within a reasonable time.148. The Court reiterates that according to its case-law it would not apply the criteria established for assessment of the reasonableness of the duration of the regular proceedings to determine the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings concerning claims for damage sustained due to the length of the regular proceedings. It further considers that the issue of the duration of proceedings should normally not be treated as particularly complex. Moreover, special diligence is required from the State when dealing with cases in which the parties seek redress for damages sustained due to unreasonable length of proceedings (see, for instance, Belperio and Ciarmoli v. Italy, no. 7932/04, § 42, 21 December 2010).
149. The Court further observes that it previously held in respect of the remedies provided for excessive length of proceedings under the Italian "Pinto" law that in principle proceedings should not take more than one year and six months at one level of jurisdiction and two years at two levels of jurisdiction, unless special circumstances justify a longer time for processing claims (see Gagliano Giorgi, cited above, § 72; CE.DI.SA Fortore S.N.C. Diagnostica Medica Chirurgica v. Italy, nos. 41107/02 and 22405/03, § 39, 27 September 2011; and Francesco Quattrone v. Italy, no. 13431/07, § 33, 26 November 2013).150. More recently, the Court considered as unreasonable a period of five years and ten months for adjudicating a claim for damages due to an excessive delay in previous proceedings (see Hajrudinović, cited above).
151. Lastly, the Court reiterates that even if proceedings for compensation for damage sustained due to the excessive length of previous proceedings themselves suffer from delays such that they do not meet the "reasonable time" requirement as applied with regard to this special kind of proceedings, the domestic authorities may still remedy the situation and prevent a finding of a breach of the Convention if they themselves acknowledge their delays and increase accordingly the amount of compensation awarded in order to make good the further delay (compare Cocchiarella, cited above, § 98).152. The Court sees no reason to depart from the case-law mentioned above and its requirements as to the remedies provided by States for excessive length of proceedings.153. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the compensation proceedings at issue in application no. 10092/13 lasted six years and ten months at five levels of jurisdiction (see paragraph 135); the compensation proceedings in application no. 20708/13 lasted eight years and nine months at four levels as of March 2016 and are possibly still ongoing (see paragraph 136); the compensation proceedings in application no. 22455/13 lasted eight years and nine months at four levels up to March 2016 and are possibly still ongoing (see paragraph 137); in application no. 61245/13 the compensation proceedings lasted five years and eight months at five levels (see paragraph 138); the compensation proceedings in application no. 61482/13 lasted eight years and five months at four levels as of March 2016 and are possibly still ongoing (see paragraph 139); and the compensation proceedings in application no. 22520/14 lasted four years and three months at three levels as of March 2016 and are also possibly still ongoing (see paragraph 140).154. Bearing in mind the case-law mentioned above, none of those periods can be considered reasonable for proceedings concerning claims for damage sustained due to the length of other proceedings.155. The Court notes further that the applicant also raised a complaint about the excessive length of most of the compensation proceedings, however, the domestic courts failed to grant it, except for the Municipal Court in proceedings no. 27 C 325/2007 (application no. 22455/13). In that case, the Municipal Court indeed intended to award the applicant increased compensation due to the length of the compensation proceedings (see paragraph 39 above) but failed in the end to do so, apparently because of a miscalculation. If the court had given redress as it had intended, it would have provided a remedy for the excessive length of those proceedings.156. Taking into account the domestic legal practice concerning consideration of the excessive length of compensation proceedings while adjudicating on damages in such proceedings (see paragraph 94 and following), the Court welcomes the fact that Czech courts, under the domestic law (section 31a (3) of the State Liability Act), have already generally accepted the possibility of remedying excessively lengthy compensation proceedings by awarding increased compensation. At the same time, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the domestic courts have recently significantly limited the application of that possibility in practice by only allowing for it if plaintiffs raise such a complaint early enough during the proceedings before the court of first instance (see paragraphs 97-99). Having regard to the fact that undue delays in compensation proceedings may well occur only later during proceedings before courts of first instance, or even in the later stages of proceedings, the Court notes that the approach adopted in the most recent Czech cases thwarts the application of such a remedy in many cases.157. The Court emphasises the need for special diligence when dealing with cases in which redress for damage sustained due to the unreasonable length of other proceedings is sought (see paragraph 148 above). In such cases, speedy progress in the proceedings and a quick assessment of the claim is of the utmost importance. That is why, whenever any delays occur in such proceedings, the court determining the amount of compensation should, if the domestic law makes it possible, as Czech law does according to earlier case-law of the Czech superior courts (see paragraphs 94-96), acknowledge its own delays and accordingly award a particularly high amount of compensation. That avoids prolonging the whole case unnecessarily and avoids the applicant having to claim compensation for the length of compensation proceedings in a chain manner, thus burdening the domestic judicial system even more (compare also the Municipal Court's intention in proceedings no. 27 C 325/2007, at issue in application no. 22455/13, see paragraph 39).158. Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that there has also been a breach of Article 6 § 1 with respect to the compensation proceedings concerned.IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
159. The applicant complained further that the remedy under the State Liability Act does not constitute an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [this] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
160. In that regard, the applicant complained about the length of compensation proceedings and further challenged alleged systemic deficiencies in the remedy under the State Liability Act. In particular, he challenged the applicability of the rules of civil procedure to those proceedings, the rules for the preliminary request to be filed with a responsible Ministry or other public authority, the possibility for the respondent State to defame plaintiffs inappropriately in the proceedings and non-compliance with the rule of a "strong but rebuttable presumption" of non-pecuniary damage caused by excessively long proceedings. Consequently, the applicant requested that the Court initiate a pilot-judgment procedure under Rule 61 of the Rules of Court.161. As the Court has held on many occasions, Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at the national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief. The scope of the Contracting Parties' obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, e.g., Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI). The "effectiveness" means that the remedy must be adequate and accessible; while it does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Peter v. Germany, no. 68919/10, § 55, 4 September 2014, and Kudła, cited above, § 157).162. The Court does not prescribe an exact form of a remedy under Article 13 to the Contracting Parties; moreover the requirements of Article 13 may be satisfied not by a single remedy but by an aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law (see, e.g., Kudła, cited above, § 157). The Contracting Parties are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their Convention obligations under this provision (see Kudła, cited above, § 154; or Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 86, ECHR 2005-X).163. Bearing those principles in mind, as well as its previous case-law concerning the effectiveness of the remedy provided for by the State Liability Act (in particular the Vokurka decision, cited above), the Court finds that the applicant's complaints regarding the procedural aspects of that domestic remedy do not show that it is incompatible with the requirements of Article 13. Nor does the Court find any substantiation for the applicant's complaints of a failure to comply with the rule of a strong but rebuttable presumption of non-pecuniary damage arising from excessive length of proceedings in compensation proceedings (compare, for example, the decision of the Supreme Court within the proceedings at issue in application no. 10092/13, quoted in paragraph 11 above). Lastly, the applicant's complaint about being denigrated by the respondent State is neither substantiated nor relevant with respect to Article 13.164. Finally, the Court turns to the length of the compensation proceedings complained about by the applicant. It reiterates that while it cannot be ruled out that excessive delays in an action for compensation will render the remedy inadequate (see Belinger v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 42320/98, 2 October 2011, and Cocchiarella, cited above, § 86), it finds in the present case that the duration of the proceedings, even though amounting to a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, was not of such significance as to call into question the effectiveness of the remedy as such (see Golha, cited above, § 73; Belperio and Ciarmoli v. Italy, cited above, § 53; Hajrudinović, cited above, § 58; and Gagliano Giorgi, cited above, § 80).165. Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that it has already expressed concerns about the risks of the lengthening of compensatory proceedings in the Czech Republic, which can be assessed at several levels of jurisdiction (see Vokurka, cited above). In that regard, the Court emphasises that regardless of the conclusion it has reached as to the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention in the present case, should the length of compensatory proceedings under the State Liability Act prove to be a common deficiency and should litigants lack easy access to higher levels of compensation on such grounds, irrespective of the stage of the proceedings where the delays occur, the conclusion of the Court regarding the compatibility of this remedy with Article 13 could be different (see DOMIRA, SPOL. S R.O. and Meluzínová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), nos. 60702/11 and 59633/12, § 66, 7 March 2017).166. Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For the same reasons, the Court finds no grounds to initiate a pilot-judgment procedure under Rule 61.V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
167. In applications nos. 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14 and 13258/15 the applicant also invoked Articles 1, 17 and 18 of the Convention, complaining about alleged defamation and personal assaults by the respondent State against him in the domestic proceedings. The Court finds no evidence whatsoever in the case file to substantiate those complaints or which might disclose an appearance of a breach of the provisions invoked. It follows that those complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.168. Lastly, in application no. 22520/14 the applicant also complained about the cheek swab he had been given (see paragraph 66 above) and about the taking and storing of his DNA information as such, relying on Articles 3, 8 and Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8.169. The Court reiterates that under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention it can only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted. Complaints intended to be made before the Court should thus have first been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports 1996-IV; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200; or similarly Lesko v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 49941/06, 17 November 2009). Consequently, domestic remedies have not been exhausted when an appeal is not accepted for examination because of a procedural mistake by the applicant (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 143, ECHR 2010).170. In the present case, the applicant's last appeal on points of law was not examined on the merits by the Supreme Court because of a failure by the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, to submit a proper appeal (see paragraph 72). Furthermore, the applicant did not subsequently lodge a proper constitutional complaint and did not pursue the proceedings before the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 73). It must therefore be concluded that he did not make proper use of the available and effective domestic remedies. It follows that this complaint must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
171. 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
172. The applicant claimed the following amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage: 10,000 euros (EUR) for the violation of Article 13 of the Convention and EUR 10,000 for the violation of Article 17. In addition, he requested compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the violations under each of his applications, without any further specification.173. The Government suggested that the finding of a violation of the applicant's rights would constitute sufficient redress, but alternatively noted that any sum awarded to the applicant in respect of any damage should not exceed EUR 10,000.174. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 5,000 under that head.B. Costs and expenses
175. The applicant also claimed EUR 172 in respect of postal expenses, EUR 298 for translation expenses and EUR 4,723 for legal costs incurred before the Court. Unlike the first two amounts, which were supported by evidence, the applicant only explained how the last amount was calculated (on the basis of the number of hours spent by the applicant's representative on studying the case file and documents, consultations with the applicant and the preparation of observations). The applicant noted that he had no financial resources and that his legal representative had been assigned to him free of charge by a court and the Czech Bar Association with respect to another case; that is why the applicant did not present any invoice or similar document proving the amount of legal costs.176. The Government did not contest the claim for postal and translation expenses. They submitted that the claim for legal costs should not be granted as it had not been supported by proper evidence and, moreover, was exaggerated.177. 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 470 covering the postage and translation expanses. As it has not been provided with any documents to justify the amount claimed by the applicant for legal costs or to elucidate the scope and nature of the applicant's agreement with his legal representative concerning the proceedings before the Court (see Loboda v. Ukraine, no. 8865/06, § 62, 17 November 2016), the Court is unable to establish an amount for those costs and expenses. The claim for legal expenses should therefore be rejected.C. Default interest
178. 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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaint concerning the length of the main proceedings in application no. 13258/15 and the complaints concerning the length of the compensation proceedings in applications nos. 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13 and 22520/14 under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of those applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
4. Holds,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 470 (four hundred and seventy 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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 February 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Renata DegenerArmen Harutyunyan
Deputy RegistrarPresident
ANNEX
No. |
Application no. |
Lodged on | Domestic proceedings - no. | |
Main proceedings | Compensation proceedings | |||
05/02/2013 | 37 C 51/2004 | 17 C 204/2007 | ||
13/03/2013 | 18 C 84/2006 | 30 C 178/2009 | ||
26/03/2013 | 34 C 126/2004 | 27 C 325/2007 | ||
11/09/2013 | 5 Ca 176/2004, 5 Ca 329/2006 | 26 C 58/2008 | ||
24/09/2013 | 10 Ca 10/2005, 10 Ca 400/2006 | 19 C 85/2008 | ||
09/04/2014 | 10 C 49/2008 | 23 C 108/2012 | ||
11/03/2015 | 34 C 138/2006 | 15 C 184/2012 | ||