BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF SIKA v. SLOVAKIA (no. 6)
(Application
no. 868/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10
November 2009
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 Sika v. Slovakia (no. 6),
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza,
President,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai
Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence
Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 20 October 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 868/05) 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 Vladimír
Sika (“the applicant”), on 11 December 2004.
- The
Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
- On
3 July 2008 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Trnava.
A. Proceedings concerning the action of 22 September
2000
- On 22 September 2000 a housing cooperative filed an
action before the Trnava District Court against the applicant,
seeking payment of a sum of money.
- On 7 October 2002 the District Court decided against
the applicant and dismissed his counterclaim. The applicant lodged an
appeal.
- On 18 November 2002 the applicant complained about
unjustified delays to the President of the District Court and
challenged a District Court judge for bias.
- On 31 March 2003 his request for waiver of the court
fees was dismissed by a judicial clerk. The applicant filed an
appeal.
- On 8 August 2003 the case file was transferred to the
Trnava Regional Court. On 4 September 2003 the Regional Court
remitted it back, as the District Court had failed to decide on the
applicant's appeal in respect of his request for waiver of the court
fees. On 23 February 2004 a District Court judge dismissed the
applicant's request for waiver of the court fees. The applicant
appealed.
- On 30 June 2004 the case file was transferred to the
Regional Court. On 13 August 2004 the Regional Court remitted it to
the District Court, as the decision of 23 February 2004 was delivered
by the judge who had previously been challenged for bias by the
applicant. Following a statement by the judge concerned as to her
alleged bias, the case file was transferred to the Regional Court on
23 September 2004. On 30 September 2004 the Regional Court
decided not to exclude the District Court judge in question from
dealing with and deciding on the case.
- On 31 January 2005 the Regional Court quashed the
District Court's judgment and confirmed the decision not to grant the
applicant a waiver of the court fees. The case file was remitted to
the District Court on 18 February 2005.
- On 13 February 2006 the District Court decided against
the applicant. The applicant appealed. On 4 April 2006 the file was
transferred to the Regional Court which, on 17 July 2006, quashed the
first-instance judgment.
- On 11 January 2007 the applicant lodged a
counterclaim. On 21 February 2007 the District Court
dismissed the applicant's request for waiver of the court fees for
lodging his counterclaim. The applicant appealed and the file was
transferred to the Regional Court on 14 March 2007. On 13
April 2007 the Regional Court remitted it back as being submitted
prematurely. On 18 April 2007 the file was repeatedly transmitted to
the Regional Court. On 30 April 2007 the Regional Court upheld the
first-instance decision of 21 February 2007.
- Between January and October 2007 the District Court
held 6 hearings. On 29 October 2007 the District Court
delivered its third judgment and decided against the applicant.
- On 9 November 2007 the applicant appealed. On 27
February 2008 the District Court dismissed the applicant's request
for waiver of the court fees for lodging his appeal. The applicant
appealed. On 27 March 2008 the file was transferred to the Regional
Court which, on 18 April 2008, upheld the first-instance decision of
27 February 2008.
- On 5 November 2008 the Regional Court quashed the
first-instance judgment of 29 October 2007. According to the
information submitted by the applicant a hearing was to be held on 10
June 2009 before the District Court.
B. Constitutional proceedings
1. Applicant's first constitutional complaint
- On 15 March 2004 the applicant applied to the
Constitutional Court, challenging the length of the proceedings
before the Trnava District Court.
- On 4 November 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected
his complaint. It noted that, in accordance with its long-established
practice, it could examine complaints in respect of the length of the
proceedings only if the proceedings were still pending before the
authority liable for the alleged violation. The proceedings before
the District Court had ended before the introduction of his
constitutional complaint.
2. Applicant's second constitutional complaint
- On 7 November 2005 the Constitutional Court found that
the Trnava District Court, of which the applicant exclusively
complained, had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 §
2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and his
right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within
a reasonable time.
- The Constitutional Court held that there was a degree
of factual complexity to the case which could not, however, justify
the length of the proceedings. The applicant's conduct had not
contributed to the length of the proceedings. However, the exercise
of his procedural rights (counterclaim, challenge of a judge for
bias, waiver of the court fees) had prolonged the proceedings, which
could not be imputed to the relevant authority. The District Court's
ineffective performance (from delivery of its judgment, two years had
passed before the case file was duly transferred to the Regional
Court for decision on the applicant's appeals; its judgment was
quashed on account of insufficient establishment of the facts) had
resulted in avoidable delays.
- The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK
20,000 (the equivalent of 514 euros at that time) as just
satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the
Trnava District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings
and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The applicant complained that
his right to a fair hearing had been violated in the above
proceedings and that the length of the proceedings had been
excessive. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which
reads as follows:
“In
the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone
is entitled to a fair... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ...
tribunal...”
A. Alleged unfairness of the proceedings
- It appears from the applicant's
submission that the proceedings are still pending. Moreover, the
applicant did not complain of their alleged unfairness to the
Constitutional Court.
- It follows that this complaint
must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4
of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
B. Length of the proceedings
- The
Government did not contest the argument in respect of the
unreasonable length of the proceedings but argued that this part of
the application was inadmissible for the reasons set out below.
- The
Government objected that, in respect of the proceedings examined by
the Constitutional Court, the applicant could no longer claim to be a
victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable
time. They argued that the Constitutional Court had acknowledged such
a violation and the amount of just satisfaction awarded was not
manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case. The
Government invoked the similarity of the present situation with that
examined by the Court in its judgment of 19 December 2006 in the case
of Šedý v. Slovakia (no. 72237/01) in the
action against a housing co-operative.
- As
to the subsequent period, the Government argued that the applicant
had not exhausted domestic remedies as it had been open to him to
lodge (i) a fresh complaint with the Constitutional Court in respect
of the proceedings before the District Court and (ii) a
constitutional complaint in respect of the proceedings before the
Regional Court.
- The
applicant disagreed and argued that the amount of just satisfaction
granted by the Constitutional Court was disproportionately low in the
circumstances of the case. He further argued that he was not obliged
to have recourse again to the constitutional remedy.
29. The Court notes that at the time of the second
Constitutional Court's judgment the proceedings had been pending for
5 years and more than 1 month at two levels of jurisdiction.
However, the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court
exclusively about the length of the proceedings before the District
Court. Due to the fact that the delays which occurred until the file
was duly transferred to the Regional Court (see paragraphs 9, 10)
were imputable to the District Court, the relevant period to be taken
into consideration exceeded 4 years and 8 months. The Constitutional
Court awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR 514 as just
satisfaction in respect of the proceedings examined by it and ordered
the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings.
- The
amount awarded by the Constitutional Court cannot be considered as
providing adequate and sufficient redress to the applicant in view of
the Court's established case-law (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1)
[GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006-V, and
Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§
65-107, ECHR 2006-V).
- As
for the Government's comparative argument concerning the case of
Šedý, the Court observes that, in contrast to
the present case, the relevant part of the proceedings referred to in
Šedý lasted no more than about 2 years and 5
months at a single instance (see, Šedý, cited
above, § 73).
- In
view of the above, in respect of the proceedings before the District
Court up to the time of the second Constitutional Court's judgment,
the Court concludes that the applicant did not lose his status as a
victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
- Since
the effect produced by the decisions of the Constitutional Court did
not satisfy the criteria applied by the Court, the applicant was not
required, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention,
to use again the remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution in
respect of the proceedings subsequent to the second Constitutional
Court's judgment (see, mutatis
mutandis, Becová
v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007).
- The
proceedings started on 22 September 2000 and in June 2009 they were
still pending before the District Court. They have lasted
approximately 8 years and 8 months at two levels of jurisdiction so
far.
- The
Court notes that this part of the application 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.
C. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
In particular, at the time of the second Constitutional Court's
judgment the period for which the District Court was responsible
exceeded 4 years and 8 months. After that date the proceedings
lasted approximately 3 years and a half at two levels of
jurisdiction. It is observed that the District Court's judgment had
to be quashed by the Regional Court three times (see paragraphs
11, 12 and 16 above).
- In
view of the above considerations the Court concludes that the overall
length of the period under consideration was incompatible with the
applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
- There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 12 TO THE
CONVENTION
- In
connection with the facts of the case the applicant alleged
discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.
- The
applicant also complained about violation of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 12 to the Convention.
- However,
in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as
the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds
that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the right
guaranteed under Article 14 of the Convention.
- The
complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention is
incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the
Convention (see Sika v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 2132/02, 10 May
2005).
- It follows that this part of the application is partly
manifestly ill founded and partly incompatible ratione
personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
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 2,944 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage
and EUR 4,923 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The Government contested the
pecuniary damage claimed by the applicant. They considered the
claim for non-pecuniary damage exaggerated.
- The Court does not discern any causal link between the
violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore
rejects this claim. On the other hand, and bearing in mind the
sum awarded by the Constitutional Court, it awards the applicant EUR
1,500 in respect of non pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant claimed a lump sum for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and the Court and supported his claim by
several invoices.
- As
to the costs of the domestic proceedings the Government had no
objection against the award of a demonstrably incurred sum.
- 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 were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 100 for
the applicant's out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the proceedings
before the Court.
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, the following
amounts:
(i)
EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros),
plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary
damage;
(ii)
EUR 100 (one hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to
the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 November 2009,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President
