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 HUDEČKOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 16933/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 June
2009
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 Hudečková v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić,
judges,
and Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 May 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 16933/03) 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, Mrs Anna
Hudečková (“the applicant”), on 10 May 2003.
- The
applicant was represented by Mrs E. Šimová, a lawyer
practising in Košice.
The Slovak Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mrs M. Pirošíková, their
Agent.
- On
7 May 2006 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Jaklovce.
A. Proceedings before the ordinary courts
1. Inheritance proceedings (file no. D 745/95)
- On
14 June 1995 the Spišská Nová Ves District Court
started inheritance proceedings in respect of the estate of a
relative of the applicant. At that time the applicant's mother was
one of the heirs of the testator.
- After
the official appointed by the court had gathered all the information
required, the District Court gave a decision on the distribution of
the estate on 18 September 1996. Both parties appealed.
- The
Košice Regional Court quashed the District Court's decision on
28 July 1997.
- On
23 June 1998 the file was transmitted to the notary appointed to act
as the court's officer in the case.
- A
different notary was appointed on 8 October 1999.
- On
26 January 2000 the applicant's mother died. She bequeathed her share
in the inheritance to the applicant.
- Five
hearings were scheduled before 22 January 2002, when a different
notary was appointed to act as the court's officer in the case.
- The
applicant challenged all the judges of the District Court on the
ground that the length of the proceedings had been excessive.
On 30 September 2002 the Regional Court decided not to
exclude the District Court judges.
- On
10 December 2002 the officer of the District Court drew up a list of
the estate. The District Court decided on its distribution on the
same day.
- On
21 December 2002 the applicant appealed. The file was transferred to
the Regional Court on 21 February 2003.
- On
31 March 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on the merits
and quashed the part concerning the costs.
- On
30 May 2003 the District Court gave a decision on the costs of the
inheritance proceedings and the notary's fees.
- On
27 August 2003 the Regional Court quashed the decision to the extent
that it concerned the notary's fees.
- On
23 December 2003 the District Court decided on the notary's fees. The
decision became final on 18 February 2004.
- On
23 February 2004 the District Court asked the applicant to settle the
court fees, which had not been fully paid.
- The
applicant complied with the request on 12 May 2004.
2. Proceedings concerning the applicant's claim of 1996
(file no. 4 C 720/96) and the claim of 1999
(file no. 7 C 768/99).
- On
5 August 1996 the applicant lodged an action with the Spišská
Nová Ves District Court, claiming a sum of money (the
equivalent of approximately 2,500 euros (EUR)) from the heirs in the
above inheritance proceedings. The applicant had spent that sum on
the reconstruction of the house which belonged to her relative's
estate. The proceedings were given the file number 4 C 720/96.
22. On
5 August 1999 the applicant and her husband sought legal
recognition that the sum equivalent to approximately EUR 2,500 which
they had invested in the house of the applicant's relative did not
form a part of the testator's estate. That claim was attributed file
number 7 C 768/99 until 20 December 2000, when the District Court
decided that it should be joined to the proceedings concerning the
applicant's action of 1996.
- On
26 June 2003 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in
respect of the action of 1996 because the applicant had withdrawn her
claim. It further granted leave to the applicant to amend her claim
of 1999. The District Court decided to deal with the newly submitted
claim in a separate set of proceedings (see below).
3. Proceedings concerning the claim of 2003 (file
no. 10 C 40/03)
- As
indicated above, on 26 June 2003 the District Court permitted a
modification of the claim of 1999. By the new action the applicant
sought that the sum of money which she and her husband had invested
in the real estate concerned be declared a part of their matrimonial
property. The District Court decided to deal with the new claim in a
separate set of proceedings (file number 10 C 40/03).
- On
13 December 2004 the District Court dismissed the amended action.
- On
27 April 2006 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment.
B. Constitutional proceedings
- The
applicant complained before the Constitutional Court that the
District Court had violated her right to a hearing within a
reasonable time in three sets of proceedings (file nos. D 745/95,
4 C 720/96 and 7 C 768/99).
- On
2 April 2003 the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 6
§ 1 and its constitutional equivalent in those sets of
proceedings.
- As
regards the inheritance proceedings (D 745/95), the
Constitutional Court found that the case was not complex. The parties
had partially contributed to the length of the proceedings in that
they had challenged court officers three times. The other two sets of
proceedings were not complex (although a preliminary question had
needed to be determined in the inheritance proceedings), and the
applicant's conduct had not contributed to their length.
- The
Constitutional Court awarded the applicant the overall amount of
70,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK – the equivalent of approximately
EUR 1,700 at that time) as just satisfaction. It also ordered the
District Court to proceed with the applicant's cases, to the extent
that the proceedings were still pending before it, without further
delay. It ordered the District Court to reimburse the costs the
applicant had incurred in the constitutional proceedings in the
amount she claimed.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings in the above
cases had been incompatible with the “reasonable time”
requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which
in its relevant part 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
1. Inheritance proceedings (file no. D 745/95) and proceedings
concerning the applicant's claims of 1996 (file
no. 4 C 720/96) and 1999 (file no. 7 C 768/99).
- The
Government argued that, in respect of the proceedings examined by the
Constitutional Court (D 745/95, 4 C 720/96 and 7 C 768/99), the
applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of her
right to a hearing within a reasonable time. They argued that the
Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged such a violation, had
ordered the District Court to act and that the amount of just
satisfaction awarded had not been manifestly inadequate in the
circumstances of the cases. As to the period subsequent to the
Constitutional Court's judgment, the applicant had not exhausted
domestic remedies by lodging a fresh complaint with the
Constitutional Court.
- The
applicant disagreed and argued that the amount of just satisfaction
granted by the Constitutional Court had not been sufficient.
- The
Court observes that the inheritance proceedings (no. D 745/95)
started on 14 June 1995 and ended on 18 February 2004, during
which period the Regional Court dealt with the case for approximately
one year. Having regard to the fact that the applicant had directed
her constitutional complaint exclusively against the District Court's
proceedings, the Court will only take into consideration the period
during which the case was pending before the District Court.
- The
period under the Court's consideration in respect of proceedings nos.
4 C 720/96 and 7 C 768/99 started on 5 August 1996, when the
applicant lodged her action. On 5 August 1999 she filed another
similar action, which was dealt with separately until 20 December
2000 when the District Court joined this claim to the proceedings on
the action of 1996. These proceedings ended on 26 June 2003,
when the applicant withdrew her claim of 1996 and modified the claim
of 1999. After that time the applicant's new claim was dealt with
under a new file number (see part (2) below).
- Meanwhile,
on 2 April 2003 the Constitutional Court awarded the applicant the
equivalent of EUR 1,700 as just satisfaction in respect of the
proceedings pending before the District Court under file nos. D
745/95, 4 C 720/96 and 7 C 768/99. As regards the periods of the
proceedings examined by the Constitutional Court, this amount cannot
be considered to have provided adequate and sufficient redress to the
applicant in view of the Court's established case-law (see Scordino
v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR
2006-... , and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§
65-107, ECHR 2006-...).
- In
view of the above, in respect of the periods of the District Court's
proceedings examined by the Constitutional Court, the Court concludes
that the applicant did not lose her status as a victim within the
meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see, for example, Eliáš
v. Slovakia, no. 21326/07, § 24, 18 March 2008).
Accordingly, she was not required to again resort to the complaint
under Article 127 of the Constitution in respect of the District
Court's proceedings nos. D 745/95, 4 C 720/96 and 7 C 768/99 after
the Constitutional Court's judgment of 2 April 2003 (see Becová
v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007).
- The
Court notes that this part of the application 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. Proceedings concerning the claim of 2003 (file
no. 10 C 40/03)
- The
Court observes that the applicant did not complain about the length
of these proceedings before the Constitutional Court by means of a
complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution.
- It
follows that this part of the application must be rejected under
Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
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 those 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 the length of the three sets of proceedings pending before the
District Court under the file numbers D 745/95, 4 C 720/96 and 7
C 768/99 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 EUR 1,627 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR
20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
-
The Government contested these claims.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects that claim. On
the other hand, it considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, and having regard
to its case-law on the subject and to the fact that the applicant
obtained partial redress in the proceedings before the Constitutional
Court, it awards her EUR 4,200 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant claimed in total the amount of EUR 2,778. That sum included
the costs of her legal representation before the Constitutional Court
(EUR 332) and before the Court (EUR 2,281), translation costs (EUR
136) and postal expenses (EUR 29).
- The
Government objected, pointing out that reimbursement of the
applicant's costs in the constitutional proceedings had been ordered
by the Constitutional Court. As regards the costs of her
representation before the Court, they noted that only the amount of
EUR 1,022 had been supported by invoices. They did not contest the
claims in respect of the costs of translation and postal expenses.
- 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 information in its possession, the above criteria and the fact
that the costs of the applicant's legal representation before the
Constitutional Court were reimbursed at the domestic level, the Court
rejects the claim for costs and expenses incurred in the
constitutional proceedings and considers it reasonable to award the
applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 1,187 for
the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
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 UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings pending under the file numbers D 745/95,
4 C 720/96 and 7 C 768/99 admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts:
(i) EUR
4,200 (four thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
1,187 (one thousand one hundred and eighty-seven 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 June 2009, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
