BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF JUDT v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 70985/01)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9
October 2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Judt v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
President,
Mr J. Casadevall,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K.
Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr J. Šikuta,
Mrs P.
Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 18 September 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 70985/01) 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 two Slovak nationals, Mr Ján Judt
and Mr Miroslav Judt on 12 April 2001 and 24 February 2003
respectively.
- The
Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
- On
7 October 2005 the
Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
- The
first applicant, Mr Ján Judt, was
born in 1944 and lives in Zvolen. The second applicant, Mr Miroslav
Judt, is the son of the first applicant. He was born in 1983 and
lives in Zvolen.
A. Proceedings concerning divorce and parental rights
and obligations
- On
6 June 1997 the first applicant's wife filed a petition for divorce
and for determination of parental rights and obligations in respect
of their son, the second applicant. The plaintiff claimed custody of
the second applicant.
- On
25 June 1997 the District Court in Zvolen scheduled a hearing for 15
July 1997; it sent the petition to the first applicant for comments.
On the same day the court appointed a guardian – the Zvolen
District Office, Department of Social Affairs - to defend the
interests of the second applicant in the proceedings. The court made
an inquiry about the parents' income.
- On
30 June 1997 the first applicant asked for the hearing to be
postponed as he had planned a holiday abroad with his son.
- On
15 July 1997 the court adjourned the case until 4 September 1997
because of the parties' absence.
- On
21 August 1997 the first applicant informed the court that he was
unable to attend a hearing scheduled for 4 September 1997.
- On
4 September 1997 the plaintiff excluded the possibility of reaching a
friendly settlement. The case was adjourned until 7 October 1997.
- On
1 October 1997 the first applicant apologised for his absence from
the hearing scheduled for 7 October 1997. He explained that he hoped
that the relations between him and the plaintiff would improve. The
case was adjourned until 28 October 1997. The first applicant was to
be summoned under the threat of imposition of a fine or his being
brought by the police. The court made inquiries as to the relations
within the family. It received replies on 24 October 1997. The
authority appointed as guardian recommended the second applicant's
examination by a child-psychiatrist.
- On
28 October 1997 the court heard the parties.
- On
28 November 1997 the first applicant filed a petition for an interim
measure granting him the custody of his son and obliging the mother
to contribute to the boy's maintenance.
- On
2 December 1997 the court heard witnesses as proposed by the first
applicant. The case was adjourned with a view to determining the
financial situation of the parents and obtaining the opinion of an
expert. On 3 December 1997 the court requested the parents to pay an
advance on the costs of the expert.
- On
16 December 1997 the first applicant challenged the District Court
judge for bias. On 7 January 1998 the case file was submitted to the
Banská Bystrica Regional Court which, by a decision of 9
February 1998, dismissed the request.
- In
March 1998 the District Court made inquiries about the parents'
situation.
- On
24 March 1998 the District Court granted a divorce to the plaintiff
and the first applicant. The court established that there were
serious conflicts between the spouses and that neither of them was
interested in maintaining their marriage. The decision on the
divorce became final on 1 May 1998.
- By
an interim measure forming a part of the judgment of 24 March 1998
the court placed the second applicant in the custody of the first
applicant and ordered the plaintiff to contribute to the child's
maintenance pending a final determination of the parents' rights and
obligations. The court held that the statements of the parents were
inconsistent and that the testimony of their son was not convincing.
It therefore considered that it was necessary to obtain an expert
opinion before deciding on the issue.
- On
1 April 1998 the court ordered the taking of expert evidence and
appointed an expert. The decision indicated that no appeal was
available against it.
- On
16 and 20 April 1998 respectively the first applicant challenged the
expert and the District Court judge.
- On
30 April 1998 the first applicant filed an appeal against the
judgment of 24 March 1998 to the extent that it concerned an interim
measure related to parental rights and obligations.
- On
18 May 1998 the case file was submitted to the Regional Court for a
decision on the first applicant's request for exclusion of the
District Court judge. On 30 May 1998 the Regional Court excluded the
judge concerned from dealing with the case as the judge considered
herself to have been offended by the statements contained in the
first applicant's request. The case file was returned to the District
Court on 19 June 1998. The President of the District Court assigned
the case to a different judge on 10 July 1998.
- On
20 July 1998 the District Court requested the first applicant to
specify the reasons for his appeal. The first applicant replied on
22 July 1998. On 2 September 1998 the case file was
submitted to the Regional Court. On 30 September 1998 the Regional
Court quashed the relevant part of the District Court's judgment of
24 March 1998. The Regional Court held that the first-instance court
had not proceeded correctly in that it had granted the divorce to the
second applicant's parents without determining their parental rights
and obligations during the period after the divorce. Furthermore, the
interim measure should have been issued by means of a separate
decision.
- The
case file was returned to the District Court on 19 November 1998.
- On
9 February 1999 the District Court asked the expert to comment on the
first applicant's request for his exclusion. On 24 February 1999 the
expert recommended that an expert from a different district should be
appointed.
- On
1 April 1999 the District Court issued an interim measure ordering
that the custody of the second applicant should be given to the first
applicant and that the plaintiff should contribute to his
maintenance.
- By
a decision of 15 April 1999 the court appointed an expert in clinical
child psychology. On 27 April 1999 the plaintiff challenged that
expert. She also appealed against the injunction of 1 April 1999.
- The
District Court held that there was no reason for excluding the
expert. It sent the case file to the expert on 10 June 1999. On 28
June 1999 the court warned the first applicant that a fine would be
imposed on him if he failed to appear before the expert on 6 July
1999.
The
applicant argued that he had informed the expert that he would not
appear in June 1999 as the plaintiff's appeal of 1 April 1999 had not
yet been decided. The court's warning was therefore erroneous.
- At
the request of the judge the expert returned the file to the District
Court on 29 June 1999. It was submitted to the Regional Court which,
on 26 July 1999, upheld the District Court's decision of 1 April
1999. The Regional Court's decision was served on 31 August 1999 and
3 September 1999.
- On
28 October 1999 the expert submitted her opinion to the District
Court.
- In
November 1999 the court made inquiries about the parents' financial
situation.
- On
20 December 1999 the District Court delivered a judgment on the
merits placing the second applicant in the custody of the first
applicant. It further obliged the plaintiff to contribute to the
child's maintenance as from 1 April 1999 and decided on the mother's
right to visit the second applicant. On 28 January 2000 the judgment
became final in so far as it determined the custody of the second
applicant and the mother's right to visit him.
- On
21 January 2000 the first applicant appealed against the part of the
judgment which determined the child's maintenance and the costs of
the proceedings. After the plaintiff had submitted her comments the
file was forwarded to the Regional Court on 14 March 2000.
- On
31 March 2000 the Regional Court upheld the decision on the costs. It
quashed the decision concerning the mother's obligation to contribute
to the maintenance of the second applicant as that obligation should
have been determined as from the date on which the decision on
divorce had taken effect, that is 1 May 1998. The file was returned
to the District Court on 26 May 2000.
- In
the course of June 2000 the District Court served the appellate
court's decision; it also obtained further information from the
parties.
- The
District Court held a hearing on the outstanding issue on
3 August 2000. Subsequently it decided to obtain further
evidence in accordance with the first applicant's request.
- On
23 January 2001 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 14 March
2001. It made inquiries with a view to establishing the relevant
facts.
- A
hearing was held on 14 March 2001. In March and April 2001 the court
obtained further information.
- As
the District Court judge involved had retired, the case was assigned
to a different judge on 4 June 2001. The newly appointed judge made
inquiries as to the relevant facts on 22 March 2002 and 9 May 2002.
The court received the requested items of information between 9 April
2002 and 3 June 2002.
- A
hearing was held on 22 August 2002. Prior to the hearing the first
applicant had requested that further evidence be taken. Such evidence
was obtained in the course of September 2002.
- On
3 October 2002 the District Court determined the mother's obligation
to contribute to the maintenance of the second applicant during the
period from 1 May 1998 to 3 December 2001. The court noted that the
mother had in the meantime contributed to the second applicant's
maintenance. The outstanding sum for the above period amounting to
the equivalent of 130 euros was payable to the second applicant
within 15 days from the date on which the judgment took effect. The
judgment was served on the parties on 4 and 11 November 2002.
- On
15 and 20 November 2002 the applicants appealed. The first applicant
submitted, inter alia, that he had paid in advance 1,000
Slovak korunas (SKK) on the costs of taking evidence and that only
SKK 160 had been spent for that purpose. He requested that the
remainder of the sum be returned to him. The first applicant later
reiterated that request.
- On
27 December 2002 the Banská Bystrica
Regional Court modified the first-instance judgment in that
the maintenance including the outstanding sum was payable to the
first applicant and not to his son. The court of appeal noted that
the District Court had established all relevant facts and that it had
determined the maintenance with due regard to the situation of both
parents and their son. The relevant decision became final on 13 March
2003.
- In
February 2004 an audit in the District Court's accounting office
established that a bank invoice for SKK 123 relating to the above
proceedings had not been paid and that an advance of SKK 1,000 which
the first applicant had paid for the purposes of taking evidence had
not been liquidated. Subsequently the District Court ordered the
plaintiff to pay one half of the sum paid to the bank. The other half
was deducted from the amount which the first applicant had paid and
the remainder of that sum was to be returned to him. The first
applicant challenged the decision and the relevant issues were twice
examined by courts at two levels of jurisdiction. The final decision
was given by the Regional Court on 27 July 2005.
B. Proceedings concerning the maintenance of the second
applicant after 4 December 2001
- On
4 December 2001 the second applicant filed a maintenance claim
against his mother with the District Court in Zvolen. He explained
that he had reached the age of majority on 23 October 2001. The
District Court, after having taken the relevant evidence, delivered a
judgment on 20 May 2002. In it the court determined the
mother's obligation to contribute to the second applicant's
maintenance with effect from 4 December 2001. The judgment
became final on 4 July 2002.
C. Constitutional proceedings
- On
18 December 2002 the applicants complained to the Constitutional
Court that their human rights had been violated by the Zvolen
District Court and by the Zvolen District Office which had been
appointed as guardian of the second applicant for the purpose of the
custody proceedings. They invoked Articles 6 § 1, 8, 13, 14 and
17 of the Convention and also Article 5 of Protocol No. 7. They
complained, inter alia, about the length of the proceedings
brought on 6 June 1997.
- On
29 January 2003 the Constitutional Court declared admissible their
complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length
of the proceedings before the Zvolen District Court to the extent
that they concerned the maintenance of the second applicant. As
regards the other issues examined in the context of the proceedings
brought in 1997, on which a final decision had already been given,
the applicants had not filed their complaint within the two-month
time-limit laid down in the Constitutional Court Act. In addition,
the Constitutional Court found no apparent flaws in the proceedings
indicating that the applicants' human rights had been violated.
- On
4 February 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Zvolen
District Court had violated the applicants' right to a hearing within
a reasonable time in the proceedings concerning the maintenance of
the second applicant while he was a minor. It granted SKK 15,000
to each of the applicants in compensation for non-pecuniary damage
sustained in that context.
- The
Constitutional Court held that it could only examine the length of
the maintenance proceedings as from 20 December 1999 when the final
decision on the custody of the second applicant had been given. It
found that the first applicant's requests for an interim measure and
a maintenance order filed on 27 November 1997 and 5 February 1998
respectively had been superfluous as at that time the divorce had not
yet been granted. As to the conduct of the District Court, it had
remained entirely inactive, due to the heavy workload of the judges,
for approximately 9 months from 4 June 2001 to
22 March 2002. Given the subject-matter of the proceedings,
such a delay was incompatible with the reasonable time requirement
laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
- After
its service on 12 March 2003 the applicants submitted to the
Constitutional Court the judgment given by the Regional Court on
27 December 2002. On 26 November 2003 a judge informed the
second applicant that that judgment could only be examined in the
context of a new constitutional complaint. Subsequently the
applicants made several further submissions. In particular, they
complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the
judicial decisions given in the context of the above proceedings were
erroneous and that the judges involved had been biased. They further
alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in that the
authority appointed to represent the interests of the child in the
context of the proceedings had favoured the dissolution of the
parents' marriage. They also alleged a violation of Article 14 of the
Convention in that by their conduct the ordinary courts had
discriminated against them. Under Article 13 of the Convention the
applicants complained that the decision on the appointment of an
expert had indicated that no appeal was available against it.
Finally, they complained under Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 that
the scope of the parental obligations imposed on the mother was
narrower than those imposed on the first applicant.
- On
25 February 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the above
complaint. In its decision the Constitutional Court addressed in
detail the applicants' individual arguments. It concluded, however,
that the facts complained of disclosed no appearance of a violation
of the rights on which the applicants had relied.
- As
regards the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in
particular, the first-instance court had established the relevant
facts and decided on the point in issue in accordance with the
relevant law. Its conclusions were not arbitrary. The court of appeal
had considered the arguments set out in the applicants' appeal. It
had not considered it necessary to take further evidence as the
issues raised by the case had been sufficiently established in the
proceedings at first instance. Nothing indicated that the judges
involved had been biased. The Regional Court had decided on the
applicants' appeal against the first-instance judgment in less than
three months. That period was not excessively long.
- By
granting the petition for divorce in accordance with the relevant law
the ordinary courts had not acted contrary to the second applicant's
rights under Article 8 of the Convention. The courts had granted
custody of the second applicant to his father and they had determined
the parental rights and observations in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the Family Act. Their decisions were not
contrary to Article 5 of Protocol No. 7.
- The
complaint under Article 13 had been submitted out of time. It was in
any event manifestly ill-founded as Article 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure permitted a party to request the exclusion of an expert.
- Finally,
the Constitutional Court found unsubstantiated the applicants'
complaints under Articles 14 and 17 of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained that the length of the proceedings brought in
1997 was excessive, that the District Court was not an impartial
tribunal as its judges had acted to their disadvantage and that the
decisions given were arbitrary. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention which in its relevant part provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time by an ... impartial tribunal...”
A. Admissibility
1. As regards the length of the proceedings
- The
applicants' first complaint relates to the length of the proceedings
concerning divorce and parental rights and obligations. Those
proceedings began on 6 June 1997 and the last point in issue, namely
the maintenance of the second applicant, was determined on
27 December 2002. The proceedings on the merits therefore
lasted 5 years, 6 months and 22 days for two levels of jurisdiction.
Subsequently, between February 2004 and July 2005, that is for
approximately seventeen months, courts at two levels examined issues
related to payment of an invoice and the liquidation of the first
applicant's advance payment. The Court notes that the applicants have
made no specific complaints in respect of the proceedings concerning
the maintenance of the second applicant after 4 December 2001.
- The
Government objected that, in view of the Constitutional Court's
judgment of 4 February 2004, the applicants could no longer claim to
be victims of the alleged violation of their right to a hearing
within a reasonable time in the proceedings concerning the
maintenance of the second applicant. As regards the parts of the
proceedings which concerned the divorce of the second applicant's
parents and his custody, the application was inadmissible as the
applicants had filed it more than six months after the delivery of
the final decisions on the relevant issues.
- According
to the applicants, they did not obtain appropriate just satisfaction
at domestic level.
- The
proceedings were conducted before the District Court in Zvolen under
a single case number notwithstanding that they concerned the
determination of several inter-related issues, such as the divorce of
the second applicant's parents and the exercise of parental rights
and obligations. The Constitutional Court refused to consider the
period during which the divorce and custody had been determined as
final decisions on those issues had been given prior to the
introduction by the applicants of their complaint under Article 127
of the Constitution.
- The Court, in accordance with its practice, considers
it appropriate to examine the overall length of the proceedings. In
doing so it must however take into consideration the fact that the
applicants' first constitutional complaint was only directed at the
proceedings before the first-instance court. This fact has to be
taken into account when determining the merits of this part of the
application and, if appropriate, the applicants' claims for just
satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention (Solárová
and Others v. Slovakia, no. 77690/01, § 42, 5
December 2006). Similarly, the Court notes that the first applicant
did not complain to the Constitutional Court about delays in the
proceedings concerning the amount which he had paid in advance at the
District Court's request.
- The
question whether the applicants can still claim to be victims, within
the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of their
right to a hearing within a reasonable time falls to be
determined in the light of the principles recently established under
the Court's case-law (Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC],
no. 64886/01, §§ 69-107, ECHR 2006 ... and
Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§
178-213, ECHR 2006 - ...).
- The
Constitutional Court, after having analysed a part of the proceedings
complained of in the light of the criteria which the Court also
applies, awarded the applicants the equivalent of approximately 370
euros each on 4 February 2004. That amount corresponds approximately
to 11 per cent of what the Court would be likely to award the
applicants in accordance with its practice. The low amount of just
satisfaction awarded to the applicants by the Constitutional Court,
as compared with the amounts usually granted by the Court, alone
leads to the conclusion that the redress provided to them at domestic
level was insufficient. In these circumstances, the argument that the
applicants have lost their status as “victims” cannot be
upheld.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
2. The other complaints under Article 6 § 1
- The
Court notes that the first applicant did not appeal against the
divorce and custody judgments. The applicants did not request the
exclusion of judges who had determined the maintenance issue. In any
event, the Court finds no reason for disagreeing with the
Constitutional Court's view that there was nothing to indicate that
the judges involved had been biased or that the ordinary courts had
not respected the applicants' right under Article 6 § 1 to a
fair hearing by an impartial tribunal.
- It
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and
4 of the Convention.
B. Merits
- The
applicants argued that the proceedings had lasted an excessively long
time mainly due to the conduct of the District Court in Zvolen.
- The
Government, with reference to the Constitutional Court's finding,
admitted that the complaint was not unsubstantiated.
- 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). In cases relating to civil status, what is at
stake for the applicant is also a relevant consideration, and special
diligence is required in view of the possible consequences which the
excessive length of proceedings may have, notably on enjoyment of the
right to respect for family life (Laino v. Italy [GC], no.
3158/96, § 18, ECHR 1999-I).
- The
proceedings concerned divorce and parental rights and obligations.
What was at stake for the applicants therefore called for special
diligence. The case was not particularly complex notwithstanding that
expert opinions were needed with a view to establishing the situation
of the persons concerned. The parties by their conduct contributed to
a certain extent to the length of the proceedings. In particular, the
first applicant excused himself from attending three hearings in 1997
and he twice challenged the District Court judge. The first applicant
and the plaintiff respectively challenged the two experts appointed
to submit an opinion.
- As
to the conduct of the domestic courts, the District Court decided on
the petition for divorce on 23 March 1998, that is nine months after
it had been filed. Subsequently a number of procedural issues had to
be determined by courts at two levels at the parties' requests and an
expert opinion was obtained. In a judgment of 20 December 1999 the
District Court granted custody of the second applicant to the first
applicant, determined the mother's right to visit the former as well
as the mother's obligation to contribute to the child's maintenance.
The Court finds no unjustified delays in the relevant part of the
proceedings.
- The
first applicant appealed against the decision concerning the second
applicant's maintenance and that issue was subsequently determined by
courts at two instances between March 2000 and 27 December 2002.
During that period one substantial delay of approximately 9 months
occurred due to the judges' heavy workload.
- Considering
what was at stake for the applicants and in view of the above delay
in particular, the Court finds that the overall length of the period
under consideration was incompatible with the applicants' right to a
hearing within a reasonable time.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 1, 8, 13, 14 AND 17 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 5 OF PROTOCOL NO. 7
- The
second applicant alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Convention
in that the courts and the authority appointed to act as his guardian
had acted contrary to his interests in the above divorce and custody
proceedings as a result of which he had been prevented from growing
up in a two-parent family.
Under
Article 13 of the Convention the first applicant complained that the
decision of 1 April 1998 to appoint an expert had indicated that no
appeal was available against it.
The
second applicant complained under Article 14 of the Convention that
the courts had discriminated against him in the above divorce,
custody and maintenance proceedings.
The
applicants alleged a violation of Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 in that
the courts, when determining the maintenance issue, had not imposed
on the second applicant's mother the same parental obligations as
those imposed on the first applicant.
Finally,
the second applicant submitted that the facts of the case also gave
rise to violations of Articles 1 and 17 of the Convention.
- Having
regard to the documents submitted by the parties and, in particular,
the reasons for the Constitutional Court's decision of
25 February 2004, the Court finds, to the extent that those
complaints have been substantiated and fall within its competence,
that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the
Convention or its Protocols.
- It
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and
4 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
applicants claimed the equivalent of 7,200 euros (EUR) each in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- Ruling
on an equitable basis, and having regard to its case-law on the
subject (see the recapitulation of the relevant principles and,
mutatis mutandis, their application in Scordino (no. 1),
cited above, §§ 267-272), and taking into account the
applicants' conduct (see paragraphs 61 and 70 above) as well as the
fact that the applicants have already obtained some just satisfaction
under the Constitutional Court's judgment of 4 February 2004,
the Court awards each of the applicants EUR 1,000 in respect of the
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants also claimed the equivalent of EUR 30 for postage expenses
incurred in the context of the proceedings before the Constitutional
Court and the Court.
- The
Government left the matter to the Court's discretion.
- The
Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sum
claimed, namely EUR 30.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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
- Declares unanimously the complaint concerning
the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder
of the application inadmissible;
- Holds unanimously that there has been a
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds by six votes to one
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1,000 (one
thousand euros) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage and a global
sum of EUR 30 (thirty euros) in respect of costs and expenses, the
above amounts to be converted into the currency of the respondent
State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, 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;
- Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the
applicants' claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74
§ 2 of the Rules of Court, the partly dissenting opinion of Mr
J. Casadevall is annexed to this judgment.
N.B.
T.L.E.
PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CASADEVALL
(Translation)
- I
did not vote with the majority on point 3 of the operative
provisions, on the award of just satisfaction under Article 41,
because I consider, in the circumstances of the case, that the amount
awarded for non-pecuniary damage is manifestly insufficient.
- The
case concerned the length of civil proceedings on a matter of family
law. These lasted 5 years, 6 months and 22 days, at two levels of
jurisdiction (see paragraph 57 of the judgment). After finding a
violation of the Convention, the Slovakian Constitutional Court
awarded the applicants a sum equivalent to EUR 740. To my mind that
was only a token payment. If the Court had applied its normal
criteria (an amount corresponding to the length of the proceedings,
plus a reasonable amount to take into account the fact that the
proceedings concerned personal status or capacity, minus a sum to
reflect the cost of living in the respondent country and minus the
sum already received through the national courts), by my calculations
it should have awarded the applicants the overall sum of EUR 4,460.
- Unfortunately,
for as long as the sums awarded to the applicants by national courts
in reparation for the non-pecuniary damage caused by the violation
(in the sense of the effective remedy required by Article 13 of the
Convention) continue to be manifestly unreasonable in relation to
those awarded by the Court applications in length-of-proceedings
cases like the present one will continue to pour in.
