European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF PETEJOVÁ AND PJONTEKOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA

(Applications nos. 18062/22 and 18069/22)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

5 September 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Petejová and Pjonteková v. Slovakia,

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

 Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Erik Wennerström, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 11 July 2024,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Slovakia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on 4 April 2022.

2.  The Slovak Government ("the Government") were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants, who are Slovak nationals, and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings no. 2C 97/2009 (originally no. 1C 355/2002) that they had initiated on 30 April 2002 before Bardejov District Court and in which they sought payment of unjust enrichment as to the period from 1 May 2000 until 30 April 2001.

5.  It follows from the parties' observations that on different dates the applicants brought other proceedings concerning the issue of unjust enrichment that had arisen in other periods (one of which, namely proceedings no. 6C 57/2009, having given rise to the judgment Pjonteková and Petejová [Committee], nos. 52505/20 and 52832/20, 23 June 2022), and that the District Court did not grant the defendant's repeated requests to stay proceedings no. 2C 97/2009 until the end of those other proceedings or to join them together.

6.  It appears from the Government's observations that between 2013 and 2019 several hearings were cancelled or adjourned for reasons imputable to the applicants or their legal representatives.

7.  On 11 March 2020 the District Court adopted a judgment in which it partly granted the applicants' action and awarded them a full reimbursement of their costs and expenses, the amount of which was to be determined. The decision on the merits became final on 16 May 2020, while the decision on the costs and expenses was challenged by the defendant, whose interlocutory appeal was dismissed on 20 July 2020.

8.  On 20 April 2021 a court clerk decided about the amount of the costs to be reimbursed to the applicants. On 9 June 2021 the District Court ruled on the applicants' interlocutory appeal complaint against that decision.

9.  On 25 June 2021, before the decision of 9 June 2021 had been delivered to them (on 26 June 2021), the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint challenging the length of the proceedings before the District Court.

10.  On 9 September 2021 (decision no. II. US 383/2021) the Constitutional Court dismissed that complaint as manifestly ill-founded. Having divided the proceedings before the District Court into two segments, the Constitutional Court found that the proceedings concerning the merits had ended on 16 May 2020 and that the applicants failed to complain about their length while they had been still pending. As regards the proceedings concerning the costs, the Constitutional Court acknowledged some delays but found that the length of that segment could not be considered excessive.

THE LAW

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

11.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

13.  The Government observed, first, that the applicants had failed to inform the Court about their previous applications concerning a related set of proceedings no. 6C 57/2009 and the judgment issued in this respect by the Court; in their view, the just satisfaction award made in that case both by the Constitutional Court and the Court should be taken into account. They asserted in this connection that all similar proceedings brought by the applicants (see paragraph 5 above) were closely related, which was also why the District Court had referred in its judgment of 20 March 2020 to the evidence and conclusions made in those other proceedings. They further maintained that the length of the proceedings challenged by the present application was due not only to the conduct of the District Court but also to the complexity of the matter, several changes of the judge in charge of the case and the conduct of the applicants (see paragraph 6 above). Moreover, the applicants had sought redress before the Constitutional Court only at the very end of the proceedings when solely the amount of the costs to be reimbursed to them remained pending (see paragraph 9 above), which approach appeared to be rather speculative.

14.  The applicants submitted that the proceedings at issue were independent and separate from any other proceedings brought by them and that there was no link to proceedings no. 6C 57/2009 considered by the Court in their previous applications nos. 52505/20 and 52832/20. They underlined that the proceedings lasted more than nineteen years before a single judicial instance, there having been several periods of inactivity and the ruling on the merits having been adopted after more than eighteen years. Given such a length, it was not unusual that they had not been available for some hearings and had had to ask for their adjournments; however, their conduct had never been qualified as not diligent.

15.  The Court notes that, although similar, proceedings no. 2C 97/2009 which are at issue in the present case are indeed different from proceedings no. 6C 57/2009 which were the subject-matter of the Court's judgment issued in the applicants' cases no. 52505/20 and 52832/20. This follows also from the District Court's refusal to stay the impugned proceedings or to join them to other pending proceedings (see paragraph 5 in fine above).

16.  The Court further observes that although the applicants lodged their constitutional complaint when the merits of the case had already been adjudicated and only one day before the decision on the amount of the costs had been served on them (see paragraph 9 above), they complied with the domestic procedural rules according to which applicants are entitled to complain about the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court as long as those proceedings are pending. The fact that, in such circumstances, the Constitutional Court examined their complaint only in relation to the part of the proceedings regarding the costs is at odds with the Court's established practice (see Obluk v. Slovakia, no. 69484/01, §§ 59-60, 20 June 2006, and Čičmanec v. Slovakia, no. 65302/11, § 50, 28 June 2016). It is true, however, that at that point the decision of the Constitutional Court could not have had any acceleratory effect, which the Court will take into account when considering the amount of just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicants.

17.  The period under the Court's consideration thus started on 30 April 2002 when the applicants' action was lodged and ended on 26 June 2021 when the decision on the amount of the costs was served on the applicants. The proceedings consequently lasted for more than nineteen years before one level of jurisdiction (the appellate court having been involved only for a very short period during which it was dealing with the defendant's interlocutory appeal against the decision on the costs and expenses).

18.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

19.  In the leading case of Obluk (cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

20.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.

21.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

3. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

22.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Obluk, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;
4. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table;

(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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 September 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.