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 GRAUSOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 14757/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2
June 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 Grausová v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza,
President,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša
Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş
Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 May 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 14757/06) against the
Slovak Republic lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Slovak national, Ms Viera
Grausová (“the applicant”), on 4 April 2006.
- The
Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
- On
23 May 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 1953 and lives in Košice.
- In
1997 the applicant's parents, by way of a donation
contract, transferred to the applicant their ownership title to
a garage.
- On
13 March 2002 the applicant was sued by her parents. They asked the
Košice I District Court to order the applicant to return the
above gift.
- The
applicant's request for an interim measure was dismissed on
10 December 2002.
- Several
hearings took place between 19 February 2003 and 29 July 2005.
- On
3 November 2005 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the
applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a
hearing without unjustified delay and her right under Article 6 §
1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. It held
that the case was not complex and the applicant's conduct had not
contributed to the length of the proceedings. The period of
inactivity totalling one year was imputable to the District Court.
- The
Constitutional Court awarded the applicant 10,000 Slovakian korunas
(SKK) (the equivalent of 256 euros at that time) as just satisfaction
in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District
Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse
the applicant's costs.
- A
hearing took place on 4 November 2005. Another hearing, scheduled for
2 February 2006, was adjourned.
- On
3 July 2006 the District Court dismissed the action. The judgment was
served on the applicant on 10 October 2006 and became final and
enforceable on 26 October 2006.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government did not contest that argument but expressed the view that
the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of
her right to a hearing within a reasonable time. They argued that the
Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged such a violation and
the amount of just satisfaction awarded had not been manifestly
inadequate in the circumstances of the case. The proceedings ended
shortly after the Constitutional Court had ordered the District Court
to proceed with the case.
- The
applicant disagreed.
- The
Court observes that the proceedings started on 13 March 2002 and
ended on 26 October 2006. At the time of the Constitutional Court's
decision they lasted three years and eight months at one level of
jurisdiction.
- The
Court notes that, in respect of that period, the Constitutional Court
awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR 256 as just satisfaction
in respect of non-pecuniary damage. This amount cannot be considered
to have provided 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-...,
and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§
65-107, ECHR 2006-...). In view of the above, it concludes that
the applicant did not lose her status as a victim within the meaning
of Article 34 of the Convention (see, for example, Bič v.
Slovakia, no. 23865/03, § 37, 4 November 2008).
- The
Court notes that 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.
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 view expressed by
the Constitutional Court and considers that in the instant case the
length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the
“reasonable time” requirement. It finds no further
substantial inactivity on the part of the District Court in the
period subsequent to the Constitutional Court's judgment.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed EUR 2,988 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, and having regard to the fact
that the applicant obtained partial redress at domestic level, it
awards her EUR 1,100 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 34 for costs and expenses.
- The
Government left the matter to the Court's discretion, noting that the
applicant had not supported that claim by necessary evidence.
- The
Court considers it reasonable to award the full sum claimed.
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 application admissible;
- 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 1,100 (one thousand one hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 34 (thirty-four 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 2 June 2009, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
