[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF ELIÁŠ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 21326/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18
March 2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Eliáš v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza,
President,
Giovanni Bonello,
Stanislav
Pavlovschi,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku, judges,
and Lawrence
Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 26 February 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 21326/07) 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, Mr Ladislav
Eliáš (“the applicant”), on 16 May 2007.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms I. Kalinová, a lawyer
practising in Bratislava. The Slovak Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M.
Pirošíková.
3. On
23 May 2007 the President of the Fourth Section decided to
give priority treatment to the application (Article 41 of the
Convention).
- On
13 June 2007 the
President decided to give notice of the application to the
Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was
decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at
the same time.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Bratislava.
1. The applicant’s action for restitution of real property
- On
24 March 1992 the applicant claimed restitution of real property
before the PovaZská Bystrica
District Court. He relied on the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act.
- The
District Court held a number of hearings and took extensive evidence.
In a judgment of 11 August 1995 it ordered the defendant to restore
the property to the applicant.
- On
6 November 1996 the Regional Court in Banská
Bystrica quashed the first-instance judgment.
- After
several hearings the District Court delivered its second judgment on
13 January 2000. It granted the applicant’s claim. The
defendant appealed. On 30 November 2001 the court of appeal quashed
that judgment.
- In
a third judgment, delivered on 26 February 2004, the District Court
ordered the defendant to restore the property to the applicant. The
Regional Court quashed the judgment on 10 May 2005.
- In
a fourth judgment delivered on 21 November 2005 the District Court
partly granted the applicant’s claim. On 10 February 2006 one
defendant appealed. The file was transferred to the court of appeal
on 16 February 2006.
- On
26 September 2006 the Regional Court in Trenčín
upheld the relevant part of the first-instance judgment. The
decision to grant the applicant’s claim in part became final on
16 November 2006.
- On
25 January 2007 the applicant petitioned an executions officer for
execution of the District Court’s judgment of 21 November 2005
in conjunction with the Regional Court’s judgment of 26
September 2006.
- On
17 May 2007 the District Court in Zilina
authorised the officer to execute the judgments.
- On
8 June 2007 the debtor objected to the notification of the execution
as being unclear. The executions officer submitted the objection to
the District Court in Zilina. The execution
proceedings are pending.
2. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
- On
8 December 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District
Court in PovaZská Bystrica had
violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified
delay. The Constitutional Court admitted that the case was complex
from both a factual and legal point of view.
- The
applicant by his conduct had significantly contributed to the length
of the proceedings. In particular, he had been asked three times to
specify his claim and to submit relevant documents. Between
8 December 1994 and 19 April 1995 the parties had attempted to
reach an agreement. The applicant had failed to appear before the
court on 15 September 1992, 15 December 1997, 10 and 25 May 1999 and
10 January 2000. On 16 October 2002 the applicant had requested
that a third party be allowed to join the proceedings; on 3 February
2003 he had extended his claim.
- Finally,
the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had not dealt
with the case in an effective manner. The District Court had remained
inactive between 17 December 1992 and 25 June 1993 as well as from
11 August 1995 to 1 July 1996. It had delivered three judgments
on the merits which the court of appeal had quashed on the ground
that the District Court had not sufficiently established the relevant
facts and had made procedural mistakes. The overall length of the
proceedings was unacceptable in the circumstances.
- The
Constitutional Court granted SKK 80,000 (the equivalent of EUR 2,115
at that time) as just satisfaction to the applicant. It ordered the
District Court in PovaZská Bystrica
to proceed with the case without further delay and to reimburse the
applicant’s costs.
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...”
- The
proceedings started on 24 March 1992. The execution proceedings,
which form an integral part of the determination of the applicant’s
claim are still pending (see Orel v. Slovakia, no. 67035/01,
§ 77, 9 January 2007, with further references). The
relevant period has therefore lasted 15 years and more than 11
months. During this period courts at two levels repeatedly ruled on
the merits of the case and the execution of the final judgment was
ordered by a different court.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government referred to the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 8
December 2005 and objected that the applicant could no longer claim
to be a victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a
reasonable time as regards the period covered by that judgment. As to
the subsequent period, the applicant had not exhausted domestic
remedies as he had not sought redress by means of a fresh complaint
to the Constitutional Court.
- The
applicant disagreed.
- The
Court notes that at the time when the Constitutional Court’s
judgment was given the proceedings had been pending for 13 years, 8
months and 18 days. The just satisfaction awarded by the
Constitutional Court corresponds to approximately 18% of the Court’s
likely award under Article 41 of the Convention in respect of the
same period, due account being taken of the complexity of the case
and the Constitutional Court’s conclusion as to the applicant’s
conduct. It therefore cannot be regarded as adequate in the
circumstances of the case (see the principles established under the
Court’s case-law in Cocchiarella v.
Italy [GC], no. 64886/01,
§§ 65-107, ECHR 2006 ... or Scordino
v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97,
§§ 178-213, ECHR 2006 - ...). In these
circumstances, in respect of the period covered by the Constitutional
Court’s finding the applicant has not lost his status as a
victim within the meaning of Article 41 of the Convention.
- As
to the period subsequent to the Constitutional Court’s
judgment, the case was dealt with by the court of appeal from 16
February to 26 September 2006. Since 25 January 2007 the case
has been pending, in the context of the execution proceedings, before
the District Court in Zilina. Since the
Constitutional Court’s order for the proceedings was
addressed, in accordance with the applicant’s request,
exclusively to the District Court in PovaZská
Bystrica, the Court concurs with the Government that in
respect of any further delays in the proceedings after 8 December
2005 the applicant should have sought redress by means of a fresh
complaint to the Constitutional Court (see also Becová
v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 3788/06, 18 September 2007). This
fact has to be taken into account when determining the merits of this
part of the application and, if appropriate, the applicant’s
claims for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention (see,
e.g., Judt v. Slovakia, no. 70985/01, § 61,
9 October 2007, with further reference).
- The
Court notes that the applicant’s complaint about the length of
the proceedings is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it
is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be
declared admissible.
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 and having regard to its
case-law on the subject, the Court concurs with the Constitutional
Court’s conclusion that the overall length of the proceedings
was unacceptable in the circumstances of the case (see paragraph 18
above).
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings
complained of had infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of
his possessions. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which
provides:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
- The
Government contended that the applicant had not exhausted domestic
remedies as he had failed to raise this complaint before the
Constitutional Court and as he had not claimed compensation for
pecuniary damage resulting from the alleged violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 in proceedings under the State Liability Act 1969 or,
after its entry into force on 1 July 2004, Act No. 514/2003 Coll. on
Liability for Damage Caused in the Course of Exercise of Public
Authority.
- The
Court observes that in his action the applicant claimed restitution
of real property under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act. Prior
to 16 November 2006 when the judicial decision to grant his claim in
part became final, the applicant had been in the position of a mere
claimant. The Court has held that similar claims did not amount to
“possessions” attracting the guarantees of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Kopecký v.
Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 58-60, ECHR
2004 IX...).
- To
the extent that the applicant’s complaint relates to the
proceedings concerning the execution of the judgment given in his
favour, the Court concurs with the Government that it was open to him
to seek redress by means of the remedies mentioned in paragraph 31
above.
- It
follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35
§§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, partly as being
incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the
Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and
partly for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed SKK 1,173,440 in respect of pecuniary damage. That
sum concerned damage to the real property in issue, the costs of its
re-cultivation as well as lost benefits of the applicant.
He
further claimed SKK 1 million in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
As
regards the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court notes
that the applicant obtained partial reparation at domestic level and
that it was open to him to seek redress before the Constitutional
Court as regards alleged delays in the execution proceedings
(paragraphs 24 and 25 above). In these circumstances, the Court
considers it appropriate to award the applicant EUR 3,300 under this
head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed SKK 17,050 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. That sum had been determined on the basis of the
applicable regulations on advocates’ fees.
- The
Government argued that the applicant had not supported his claim by
any evidence. They left the matter to the Court’s discretion.
- The
Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant, who was
represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 500 which corresponds
approximately to the sum claimed under this head.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,300
(three thousand three hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 500 (five hundred euros) in respect of costs and
expenses, to be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be
chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 March 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
