THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9845/06
Ioan Kornelij KOMANICKÝ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 December 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
	Corneliu Bîrsan,
	Egbert Myjer,
	Ján Šikuta,
	Ineta Ziemele,
	Nona Tsotsoria,
	Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 February 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1.  The applicant, Mr Ioan Kornelij Komanický, is a Slovak national who was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:
2.  On 6 December 1994 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava City Court raising various claims in relation to his previous employment. The background to the litigation transpires from the Court’s decisions and judgments in other of the more than 110 cases that the applicant has thus far brought under the Convention (see, for example, applications nos. 32106/96, 13677/03, 56161/00, 70977/01, 72092/01, 70494/01 and 54136/08).
3.  On 14 June 1995 the action was transmitted to the Bardejov District Court for reasons of territorial jurisdiction, it was registered there under file no. 4C 263/95 and it has been pending there since. Meanwhile a number of procedural matters have been determined on the applicant’s motions, appeals and appeals on points of law at all levels of ordinary jurisdiction.
4.  On 31 October 2006 and 10 November 2010 the Constitutional Court ruled on the applicant’s complaint and a repeated complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution of delays in the proceedings caused by the District Court. The Constitutional Court allowed both complaints, ordered that the District Court proceed with the matter without delays and awarded the applicant in total 5,200 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage plus reimbursement of costs
COMPLAINTS
5.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and discriminatory and that he had had no effective remedy in that respect.
THE LAW
A.  Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention
6.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been excessive in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
7.  The applicant also complained that he had had no effective remedy at his disposal in respect of the length of the proceedings, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] 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.”
8.  The Government considered that, in view of the redress afforded by the Constitutional Court, the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
As regards any possible subsequent delay in the proceedings, the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies by asserting his rights before the Constitutional Court anew.
The remedy before the Constitutional Court was compatible with the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention and the complaint made in reliance on that provision was therefore manifestly ill founded.
9.  The applicant disagreed with the Government, disputed some of the observations made by the Constitutional Court and reiterated his complaints. In particular, he argued that the compensatory redress afforded by the Constitutional Court was insufficient and that the preventive one was inefficient.
The applicant concluded that he could still claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time and that this right had been violated just as had been his right to an effective remedy.
10.  The Court observes that under the judgments of the Constitutional Court of 31 October 2006 and 10 November 2010 the applicant received compensation for the violation that he now alleges in respect of his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.
11.  In view of its case-law on the subject (see, in particular, 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) the Court considers the redress afforded to the applicant by the Constitutional Court acceptable in the Convention terms. In reaching this conclusion, the Court has taken into account all elements in its possession, including the context of the present case and the applicant’s procedural behaviour (see paragraphs 2 and 3 above).
12.  The Court finds, therefore, that in respect of the period considered by the Constitutional Court, the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
13.  Moreover, in respect of the subsequent period, the applicant should assert his right to a hearing within a reasonable time by a fresh constitutional complaint (see Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007). By not having done so, the applicant has failed to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
14.  In view of the above conclusions the Court finally finds that the applicant does not have an “arguable claim” for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 24 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
15.  This part of the application must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
B.  Remaining complaints
16.  The applicant alleged a violation of his rights protected under Article 14 of the Convention in connection with the violation alleged above.
17.  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 applicant’s rights under Article 14 of the Convention.
18.  It follows that the reminder of the application is manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
	Santiago Quesada	Josep Casadevall
	Registrar	President