THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PALGUTOVÁ
v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 25368/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 February 2013
This judgment is final. It
may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Palgutová v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human
Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Ján Šikuta,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 29 January 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application
(no. 25368/10) 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 Mária Palgutová (“the applicant”), on 19
April 2010.
The applicant was
represented by Ms E. Ľalíková, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The
Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
On 20 May 2011 the application was communicated
to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Civil proceedings
The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bratislava.
In 1993 the applicant’s husband died in a road
traffic accident caused by a person who was in 1995 convicted of an offence of
bodily harm.
On 16 October 1995 the applicant filed an action
with the Bratislava V District Court. She claimed compensation for her
maintenance from the person responsible for the accident.
On 3 December 2001 an insurance company informed
the District Court that it wished to join the proceedings as a third party.
On 9 December 2004 the District Court delivered a
judgment in which it partially granted the applicant’s claim.
The applicant and the insurance company appealed.
On 24 February 2005 the case file was submitted
to the Bratislava Regional Court for a decision on the appeals.
On 22 September 2005 the Regional Court held a
hearing.
On 29 September 2005 it granted the applicant’s
appeal and rejected the appeal of the insurance company.
On 24 November 2005 the Regional Court returned
the case file to the District Court for the service of its judgment.
On 30 December 2005 the insurance company
appealed on points of law.
On 31 January 2007 the Supreme Court quashed the
Regional Court’s judgment as far as it concerned the appeal of the insurance
company and its costs of the proceedings and remitted the case to the Regional Court for a new determination.
On 18 April 2007 the Regional Court received the
case file and on 25 April 2007 it scheduled a hearing for 31 January 2008.
Subsequently the Regional Court had requested in
vain competent authorities to establish the defendant’s whereabouts.
In February 2008 the defendant’s legal
representative informed the Regional Court that he had no knowledge of the
defendant’s place of residence.
On 9 May 2008 the Regional Court scheduled a
hearing for 30 April 2009 and on 24 April 2009 appointed a guardian to
represent the defendant in the proceedings.
On 24 September 2009 the Regional Court upheld
the first-instance judgment as far as it concerned the appeal of the insurance
company and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs and expenses.
On 9 November 2009 the Regional Court sent the
case file to the District Court to serve the judgment on the parties. The
judgment became final on 25 November 2009.
B. Constitutional proceedings
On 21 January 2003 the applicant complained
about the length of the proceedings to the Constitutional Court.
In its finding of 29 October 2003 the Constitutional Court held that the Bratislava V District Court had violated the applicant’s
right to a hearing without unjustified delay. It ordered the District Court to
proceed with the case and to compensate for the costs of the applicant’s
representation in the constitutional proceedings. It decided not to grant any
just satisfaction to the applicant on account that the applicant had
contributed to the length of the proceedings.
In 2009 the applicant repeatedly turned to the Constitutional Court claiming that the proceedings in issue pending before the Regional Court were delayed.
On 28 October 2009 the Constitutional Court
declared the complaint admissible and on 20 January 2010 decided that the
applicant’s right had not been violated. Referring to the applicant’s complaint
directed exclusively against the Regional Court, the Constitutional Court
examined only the period after the case file had been transmitted to the Regional Court for the decision on the appeals lodged by the parties. It found that the case
had not been complex and the applicant by her conduct had not contributed to
the duration of the proceedings. It further held despite the period when the Regional Court had scheduled a hearing in April 2007 for 31 January 2008, the conduct
of the Regional Court could not be considered as resulting in unjustified
delays.
C. The proceedings before the Court
On 17 May 2005 the Court found that the
applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a
reasonable time had been violated (see Palgutová
v. Slovakia, no. 9818/02, 17 May 2005). The
Court noted that the proceedings had lasted, at that time, nine years
and more than six months at two levels of jurisdiction (Palgutová, cited above, § 46). It awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage sustained and EUR 500 for costs and expenses for the
proceedings before the Court.
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 referred to the Constitutional
Court’s finding that there had been no violation of the applicant’s right to a
hearing within a reasonable time. In their submission, the applicant’s
complaint was therefore manifestly ill-founded.
The period to be taken into consideration began
on 17 May 2005 when the Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a
hearing within a reasonable time with respect to the proceedings in issue (see Palgutová,
cited above). They ended on 25 November 2009, namely after four
years and more than six months at two levels of jurisdiction. However, in
assessing the reasonableness of the time elapsed after the Court’s judgment,
account must be taken of the total length of the proceedings. In this respect,
the Court recalls that the proceedings had started on 16 October 1995 when the
applicant lodged her civil claim. Their whole duration thus was fourteen years
and more than one month at three levels of jurisdiction.
The Court notes that the application is not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) 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, 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.
The Court observes that the applicant claimed
maintenance after death of her husband caused by the defendant. The outcome of
the proceedings was accordingly of significant importance for her every day
life. The Court notes that the case was not complex and the applicant did not
contribute to the delays in the proceedings. It is also relevant that when the period
under consideration started the proceedings had already been pending for more
than ten years and after the Court had found a violation of the applicant’s
right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
Moreover, the Court notes that during the period
under consideration the Regional Court scheduled four hearings. The second
hearing was held on 31 January 2008 which is more than nine months after the Regional Court had received the case file from the Supreme Court. The Court further notes
that on 9 May 200 the Regional Court scheduled the third hearing for no obvious
reason one year later, namely for 30 April 2009. The last hearing on which the Regional Court gave its judgment took place only some five months later.
In the light of the above and taking note of
what was at stake for the applicant, the Court considers that in the instant
case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the
“reasonable time” requirement.
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 6,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
The Government found the claim to be overstated.
The Court considers that the applicant must have
sustained
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards her EUR 2,500
under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant also claimed EUR 1,200 for the
costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
The Government left the matter to the Court’s
discretion.
The Court observes that the applicant submitted
a legal fees agreement with her lawyer stating that she was under an obligation
to pay twenty percent of the sum awarded by the Court in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus the value added tax of twenty percent. 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 are reasonable as to
quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its
possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award
the sum of EUR 500 under this head.
C. Default interest
The Court considers it appropriate that the
default interest rate 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
1. Declares the
application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent
State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros),
plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 500 (five 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 February
2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena
Tsirli Luis López Guerra
Deputy Registrar President
