European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF BALOGH AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

(Applications nos. 7918/19 and 43062/20 - see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT
(Revision)

 

 

STRASBOURG

15 September 2022

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 

In the case of Balogh and Others v. Slovakia (request for revision of the judgment of 16 December 2021),

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,

          Erik Wennerström,

          Lorraine Schembri Orland, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 25 August 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Slovakia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  In a judgment delivered on 16 December 2021, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the administrative proceedings. The Court also decided to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table.

3.  On 17 February 2022 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that Mrs Margita Tóthová (application no. 7918/19) and Mr František Horváth (application no. 43062/20) had died on 25 July 2021 and 21 June 2021 respectively. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court asking the Court to strike the applications, in so far as brought by the above-mentioned applicants, out of its list of cases.

4.  On 24 March 2022 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicants’ representative six weeks in which to submit any observations. They were received on 2 May 2022.

THE LAW

THE REQUEST FOR REVISION

5.  The Government requested revision of the judgment of 16 December 2021. In the course of the execution of the judgment they had been informed by the applicants’ representative that Mrs Margita Tóthová and Mr František Horváth had died before the judgment had been adopted and that Ms Renata Fekete (born 1965), Mr Jozef Tóth (born 1969) and Mr Oto Tóth (born 1966) are heirs after Mrs Margita Tóthová, while Mr Róbert Horváth (born 1966) and Mr Tibor Horváth (born 1960) are heirs after Mr František Horváth. The applicants’ representative asked that the heirs should therefore receive the sums awarded to the deceased.

6.  The Government argued that the heirs should have informed the Court earlier about the death of their close relatives and about their intention to pursue the proceedings. As they had failed to do so, they should not receive the sums awarded to the deceased applicants.

7.  The Court accepts the Government’s argument that the applicants’ death had a decisive influence on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, namely the allocation of the amounts awarded under Article 41 of the Convention.

8.  It therefore considers that the judgment of 16 December 2021 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the relevant parts of which provide:

“A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court ... to revise that judgment.

...”

9.  The applicants’ representative stated that both applicants had died shortly before the Court’s judgment was issued and the heirs had had no time to intervene in the proceedings before the Court. Moreover, as regards Mrs Margita Tóthová, the decision of the Nové Zámky District Court (case no. 12D/891/2021) confirming the heirs became final only on 17 March 2022. As regards Mr František Horváth, the decision of the Komárno District Court (case no. 10D/52/2021) confirming his heirs became final on 15 November 2021. The heirs expressed their wish to continue the proceedings on their legal predecessors’ behalf.

10.  The Court has previously decided to allow a request for revision lodged during the execution of a judgment, when heirs expressed their wish to continue the proceedings (see Cioată and Others v. Romania (revision), no. 48095/07, §§ 9-14, 11 February 2021 with further references).

11.  In the present case the Court notes that the heirs are the applicants’ children and that they intervened in the procedure for the execution of the judgment arguing that they should be granted the just satisfaction awarded to the late applicants. The heirs reiterated their wish to continue the proceedings also in their submission before the Court (a contrario, Borovská v. Slovakia (revision), no. 48554/10, § 6, 16 February 2016, where no heir expressed a wish to continue the proceedings).

12.  Moreover, as follows from the documents submitted to the Court, the decision confirming Mr Horváth’s heirs became final only several days before the adoption of the Court’s judgment (25 November 2021), while the decision in respect of Mrs Tóthová became final several months after that date.

13.  The Court further notes that Ms Renata Fekete, Mr Jozef Tóth, Mr Oto Tóth, Mr Róbert Horváth and Mr Tibor Horváth are the late applicants’ only heirs and that they submitted inheritance certificates as proof of their quality as heirs. Lastly, the Court cannot but observe that the present case concerns restitution proceedings that have been pending for more than 17 years at the domestic level and that at the time of its judgement the case was still pending before the Land Office acting as a first instance administrative organ.

14.  Given the above mentioned, the Court decides to award to the heirs, jointly, the amount it had previously awarded to Mrs Margita Tóthová and Mr František Horváth, namely 7,500 euros (EUR), as just satisfaction.

15.  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.      Decides to revise the judgment of 16 December 2021;

and, accordingly:

2.      Decides that the heirs of Mrs Margita Tóthová, namely Ms Renata Fekete, Mr Jozef Tóth and Mr Oto Tóth, may pursue the application in her stead;

3.      Decides that the heirs of Mr František Horváth, namely Mr Róbert Horváth and Mr Tibor Horváth, may pursue the application in his stead;

4.      Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay jointly to the heirs of Mrs Margita Tóthová and of Mr František Horváth, within three months, EUR 7,500, as just satisfaction, plus any tax that may be chargeable;

(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 15 September 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                       

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                         Krzysztof Wojtyczek

    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

 

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of administrative proceedings)