THIRD SECTION
CASE OF
KRELA AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no.
59644/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 March 2013
This judgment is final but it may
be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Krela and Others 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 12 February 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an
application (no. 59644/09) 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 eight
Slovak nationals: Mr Jozef Krela, born in 1950 (“the first applicant”), Mr
František Krela, born in 1947 (“the second applicant”), Mr Vladimír Krela, born
in 1954 (“the third applicant”), Mr Pavol Krela, born in 1957 (“the fourth applicant”),
Ms Elena Babinská, born in 1961 (“the fifth applicant”), Ms Zdenka Krelová,
born in 1949 (“the sixth applicant”), Ms Janka Kamenišťáková, born in 1975
(“the seventh applicant”) and Mr Roma Krela, born in 1978 (“the eighth
applicant”), on
3 November 2009.
The applicants were
represented by Mr M. Rojček, a lawyer practising in Žilina. The
Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
On 3 May 2010 the application was communicated to
the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14 the application was
allocated to a Committee of three judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
On 17 July 2001 the first, second, third, fourth
and fifth applicants together with the legal predecessor of the sixth, seventh
and eighth applicants challenged the validity of a real estate purchase
contract of 1976 and sought to recover the property in issue.
Subsequently the District Court requested the case
files concerning inheritance proceedings related to the estate of several applicants’
legal predecessors, appointed a guardian to represent one minor claimant and
held two hearings.
On 30 May 2003 it dismissed the claim. On 14
October 2003 the case file was transmitted to the Žilina Regional Court for a
decision on appeal.
On 3 June 2004 the Žilina Regional Court quashed the
first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a new
determination. The case file returned to the District Court on 18 July 2004.
The District Court scheduled a hearing for 30
November 2006 which was adjourned for 3 October 2007. After the hearing the
District Court requested an expert to give opinion on the authenticity of
signatures on the purchase contract. The case file was served on the expert on
9 April 2008.
After one of the claimants’ death on 26 November
2008, the sixth, seventh and eighth applicant joined the civil proceeding as
his legal successors.
On 17 December 2008 the District Court granted
the claim as far as it concerned the validity of the contract and dismissed the
remaining part. The parties appealed against the judgment.
On 11 June 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected
the applicants’ constitutional length of proceedings complaint for being
manifestly
ill-founded. It held that the periods of inactivity of the District Court had
not resulted in delays incompatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
On 15 July 2010 the Regional Court quashed the
District Court’s judgment and returned the case to the latter for a new
determination.
On 22 November 2010 the District Court dismissed
the claim and on 20 December 2010 it amended its judgement. The applicants
appealed.
The proceedings are pending.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicants 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 relied on the Constitutional
Court’s finding of 11 June 2009 and argued that the application, in
respect of the period considered by the Constitutional Court, was manifestly
ill-founded. They further argued that the applicants should have lodged a fresh
constitutional complaint in respect of the subsequent period had they been of
the opinion that further delays had occurred.
The Court notes that at the time of the
Constitutional Court’s decision the proceedings had lasted seven years and more
than ten months for two levels of jurisdiction. It also notes that the
applicants directed their constitutional complaint exclusively against the
District Court which dealt with the case at that time. The Court further notes
that the proceedings before the District Court alone lasted some seven years.
Even if it takes exclusively into consideration the
length of the proceedings before the District Court, the Court cannot accept
their duration as being justified.
. Since
the applicants were unable to obtain
redress before the Constitutional Court in respect
of a substantial part of the proceedings, the Court concludes that, as regards
the length of the proceedings which followed the Constitutional Court’s
decision, the applicants were not required, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1
of the Convention, to have again recourse to the remedy under Article 127 of
the Constitution (see the recapitulation of the relevant principles in Becová v. Slovakia (dec.),
no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007). The Government’s objections must
therefore be dismissed.
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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was
at stake for the applicants 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, 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 applicants claimed 2,000 euros (EUR) each in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The Government left the matter to the Court’s
discretion.
The Court considers that the applicants must
have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, the
Court considers that it should award the full sum claimed.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicants also claimed EUR 800 for the
costs and expenses incurred before the Constitutional Court and EUR 1,600 for
those incurred before the Court.
The Government argued that compensation should
be paid only for reasonably incurred costs and expenses.
The Court notes that the applicants submitted legal
fees agreements with their lawyer stating that they were under a legal
obligation to pay the above some together with copies of documents showing
payment of the fees. Regard being had to the documents in its possession
and to its case-law, the Court considers that the sum claimed should be awarded
in full. In conclusion, the Court awards jointly to the applicants EUR 2,400.
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 applicants, within three months, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to each
applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary
damage;
(ii) EUR 2,400 (two thousand four hundred euros)
jointly to the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants,
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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 March 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena Tsirli Luis
López Guerra
Deputy Registrar President
