THIRD SECTION
CASE OF
CSÁKÓ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no.
47386/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 June 2013
This judgment is final but it may
be subject to editorial revision
.
In the case of Csákó 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 4 June 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an
application (no. 47386/07) 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 Ladislav Csákó (“the applicant”), on 23
October 2007.
The applicant was
represented by Ms I. Rajtáková, a lawyer practising in Košice. The
Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by Ms M.
Pirošíková, their Agent.
On 11 October 2010 the application was communicated
to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Rožňava.
A. Enforcement
On 19 February 2003 an individual (“the
claimant”) filed a petition with a judicial enforcement officer (“JEO”) for the
enforcement of the equivalent of some 1,315 euros (EUR) worth of an adjudicated
claim against the applicant.
On 26 February 2003 the JEO requested
authorisation to carry out the enforcement under file no. Ex 97/2003. The
authorisation was granted by the Spišská Nová Ves District Court (“the
Enforcement Court”) on 12 March 2003 under the file no. 1Er 279/03.
On 17 March 2003 the JEO issued a notice of
enforcement (upovedomenie o začatí exekúcie), by which he notified
the applicant that enforcement proceedings had commenced against him. The
notice specified that amounts to be enforced comprised the above-mentioned
principal amount, the equivalents of some EUR 20 in court fees, EUR 250 in the
JEO’s remuneration and EUR 50 in the JEO’s expenses.
On 25 April 2003 the applicant challenged the
notice of enforcement by way of a protest (námietky) to the Enforcement
Court arguing that the principal amount had already been paid and disputing the
claim for compensation in respect of the JEO’s remuneration and expenses.
On 30 April 2003 the claimant filed his
observations in reply to the applicant’s protest and, on 5 May 2003, the JEO
transmitted these observations to the Enforcement Court for determination of
the protest.
On 14 June 2006 the Enforcement Court allowed
the protest in part which concerned the principal amount and dismissed its
remainder. That decision became final and binding on 8 July 2006, following
which - on 21 July 2006 - the Enforcement Court discontinued the
enforcement proceedings in so far as the principal amount was concerned. The
latter decision became final and binding on 26 July 2006.
On 7 September 2006 the applicant lodged a
petition that the remainder of the enforcement be discontinued too, which the
Enforcement Court dismissed on 13 October 2006 by a decision that became final
and binding on 28 November 2006.
On 27 December 2011, upon ultimate termination
of the outstanding part of the enforcement proceedings, the JEO returned the
authorisation deed to the Enforcement Court.
B. Constitutional complaint
On 4 July 2006 the applicant filed a complaint
under Article 127 of the Constitution to the Constitutional Court. Relying on
Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution, he contended that the
length of the enforcement proceedings against him had been excessive.
On 15 March 2007 the Constitutional Court declared
the complaint inadmissible on the ground that, prior to his constitutional
complaint, the applicant had failed to exhaust ordinary remedies, in particular
the complaint to the President of the Enforcement Court.
The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant
on 23 April 2007.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicant complained that the length of the enforcement
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 submitted that the applicant had
failed to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. In
that respect, they advanced two separate lines of argument.
First, relying on the Constitutional Court’s decision of 15
March 2007, the Government contended that the applicant had failed to bring his
constitutional complaint in accordance with the applicable formal requirements.
In particular, prior to his constitutional complaint, the applicant had failed
to assert his complaint before the president of the Enforcement Court.
Second, the Government argued that the applicant had failed to
seek redress in respect of the alleged violation of his Article 6 rights by way
of an action for damages under the State Liability Act.
In reply, the applicant disagreed and pointed
out that the Constitutional Court’s practice as regards the complaint about the
length of the proceedings to the president of the court concerned as a
requirement for the admissibility of a constitutional complaint was divergent
and unpredictable.
Moreover, in the applicant’s view, there was no indication that
the remedy advanced by the Government with reference to the State Liability Act
was available and sufficient in terms of Article 35 § 1 of
the Convention to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged.
In a further submission, the Government
disagreed with the applicant’s contentions and submitted, in particular, that a
claim for damages under the State Liability Act could lead to the examination
and an award of just satisfaction in respect of the overall length of the
proceedings.
The Court observes that in its judgments in the
cases of Ištván and Ištvánová v. Slovakia (no. 30189/07, §§ 52-55 and
63-99, 12 June 2012) and Komanický v. Slovakia (no. 6) (no. 40437/07, §§
51-54 and 60-96, 12 June 2012) it examined at length and ultimately
dismissed substantially the same objections as the Government raises in the
present case.
Having found no reasons for reaching a different
conclusion in the present case, the Court finds that the Government’s
objections to the admissibly of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention must be dismissed.
The period to be taken into consideration began
on 19 February 2003. While there is no absolute clarity as to when
the proceedings in question ended, it was at latest on 27 December 2011. The
proceedings thus lasted nearly 9 years for a single level of jurisdiction.
The Court notes that this complaint 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
As to the substance, the Government acknowledged
inactivity on the part of the Enforcement Court from 4 June 2004 to 14 June
2006 in view of which they accepted that the applicant’s length-of-proceedings
compliant “was not manifestly ill-founded”.
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, including the Government’s admission (see paragraph 23 above), the Court has
found not elements 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 of the
Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant further complained of the fact
that in view of the divergent practice of the Constitutional Court and the
dismissal of his constitutional complaint he had been denied an effective
remedy in violation of Article 13, in conjunction with Article 6 §
1 of the Convention.
Article 13 of the Convention 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.”
A. Admissibility
The Government submitted that the applicant had
at his disposal remedies compatible with the requirements of the Article
invoked. Therefore, they considered that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded.
As a matter of principle, they advanced identical lines of
argument as in the cases of Ištván and Ištvánová (cited above) and Komanický
(no. 6) (cited above). In particular, prior to his constitutional
compliant, the applicant had the opportunity of asserting his complaint by way
of a complaint to the president of the Enforcement Court and,
independently of that, he could have asserted his rights by way of a claim under
the State Liability Act. Had all of these options failed, it would have been
open to the applicant to resort to the Constitutional Court as an ultimate
remedy.
Apart from the arguments submitted in respect of
the Government’s objections in respect of his complaint under Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention (see paragraph 17 above), the applicant has made no separate
submission.
The Court notes that the Government’s arguments
as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the complaint
under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention have been rejected (see paragraphs 19 et
seq. above) and that a violation of that Article has been found (see
paragraph 26 above).
It follows that the complaint under Article 13 of the
Convention, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, is not
manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.
The Court further notes that it is not inadmissible on any
other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
The Court recalls that in its above-mentioned
judgments in the cases of Ištván and Ištvánová (cited above, §§ 108 -
113) and Komanický (No. 6) (cited above, §§ 104-110), it examined
substantially the same complaint as asserted in the present case and
substantially the same objections as raised by the Government in the present
case while in those cases the Government’s objections have been dismissed and
violations of Article 13 of the Convention have been found. It finds no reasons
for reaching a different conclusion in the present case.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 13, in
conjunction with Article 6 § 1 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 EUR 4,500 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
The Government contested the claim considering
it to be overstated.
The Court considers that the applicant must have
sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it considers
that the amount claimed should be awarded in full. It thus awards the applicant
EUR 4,500 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant also claimed EUR 1,422 for the
costs of legal representation. In that respect, he submitted a contract with
his lawyer under he is to pay the lawyer on the conclusion of the proceedings
before the Court EUR 118.5 per hour of her legal service and declared that her
service in the context of the present application comprised twelve hours of
legal assistance.
The Government contested the claim considering
it to be overstated and submitting that, except for the contract with his
lawyer, the applicant had failed to submit any evidence and details as to its itemised
specification.
Regard being had to the documents in its
possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to
award the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 1,000
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 that there has been a
violation of Article 13, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to
pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 4,500 (four thousand five
hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand 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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 25
June 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena
Tsirli Luis López
Guerra
Deputy Registrar President
