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 KOMÁR v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 25951/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26 October 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Komár v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as
a Committee composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Ján
Šikuta,
Vincent Anthony de Gaetano, judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 5 October 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 25951/06) 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 Vladimír Komár (“the
applicant”), on 21 June 2006.
- The
Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
- On
31 August 2009 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol 14, the
application is assigned to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Košice.
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised
as follows.
- On
16 July 1985 the applicant lodged an action with the Vranov nad
Topľou District Court seeking division of matrimonial property.
- In
the subsequent period two first-instance judgments of 30 June 1987
and 31 October 1989 were quashed by decisions of the Košice
Regional Court of 30 December 1987 and 21 May 1990 an the case was
remitted to the District Court.
- On
20 November 1990 the Košice Regional Court decided that the
first-instance judge was biased and on 17 December 1992 it
transferred the case to the Prešov District Court for a
decision.
- On
21 October 1998 the applicant challenged the judges of the Prešov
District Court.
- On
5 November 1998 the Regional Court decided that, except for one
judge, the judges of the Prešov District Court were not
biased.
- On
24 November 1998 the applicant challenged another
first-instance judge. By a decision of the Regional Court of 6
October 1999 the judge was excluded from the case.
- On
31 August 2001 the Prešov District Court decided to obtain
an expert opinion on the value of a real estate.
- On
17 July 2002 the Prešov Regional Court, following the
defendant's and the applicant's appeal, upheld the above decision.
- On
3 September 2003 the Prešov District Court delivered
a judgment.
- On
21 October 2003 the applicant appealed and challenged another
first-instance judge.
- On
9 February 2005 the Prešov Regional Court decided that the
judge was not biased and overturned the first-instance judgment.
The decision became final on 11 March 2005.
- On
7 April 2005 the applicant appealed on points of law.
- On
28 November 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
- The
applicant turned to the Constitutional Court complaining that the
District Court and the Regional Court had violated his right to a
hearing within a reasonable time.
- On
1 March 2006 the Constitutional Court decided that the Prešov
District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 §
2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified
delay. It also decided that the Prešov Regional Court had not
violated the above right. The Constitutional Court awarded
100,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK)
to the applicant in just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary
damage. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the
applicant's costs and expenses.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained about the outcome of the civil proceeding and
claimed that the Constitutional Court had failed to award him
an adequate satisfaction for the delays occurred. He relied on
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing
within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
Admissibility
1. As regards the length of the proceedings
- The
Government concurred with the Constitutional Court in that the length
of the proceedings in this case had been unreasonable. However, they
expressed the view that the applicant could no longer claim to be a
victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable
time. They argued that the Constitutional Court had expressly
acknowledged such a violation and the amount of just satisfaction
awarded had not been manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of
the case.
- The
applicant disagreed.
24. The Court observes
that the period to be taken into consideration began only on 18 March
1992, when the recognition by the former Czech and Slovak Federal
Republic, to which Slovakia is one of the successor States, of the
right of individual petition took effect. However, in assessing the
reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must
be taken of the fact that, already at that time, the proceedings had
been pending for six years and eight months. The Court notes that the
applicant directed his length of proceedings complaint exclusively
against the District Court and the Regional Court. The proceedings
before the Regional Court ended on 11 March 2005 when the Regional
Court's decision became final. It follows that the proceedings at the
time of the Constitutional Court's judgment had lasted almost
thirteen years at two levels of jurisdiction.
- The
Court further notes that the Constitutional Court awarded the
applicant the equivalent of EUR 2,595 in just satisfaction in respect
of non-pecuniary damage. As regards the relevant period of the
proceedings examined by the Constitutional Court, as well as the
state of the proceedings at the time when the Convention entered into
force in respect of the respondent State, 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-V, and Cocchiarella
v. Italy [GC], no.
64886/01, §§ 69-107, ECHR 2006-V). In view of the
above, it concludes that the applicant did not lose his status as a
victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see, for
example, Bič v.
Slovakia, no. 23865/03,
§ 37, 4 November 2008).
- 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. As regards the applicant's right to a fair trial
- The
applicant further complained of a violation of his right to a fair
trial in the proceedings concerning his action of 16 July 1985.
- The
Court finds that the applicant did not exhaust domestic remedies
since he failed to raise that complaint in a complaint under Article
127 of the Constitution.
- It
follows that this part of the application is inadmissible for
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and must be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
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 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
- The
applicant also complained that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his
possessions had been violated as a result of the outcome of the
proceedings. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- However,
in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as
the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds
that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights
and freedoms set out in 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.”
Damage
- The
applicant had not specified the amount of damage inviting the Court
to determine the appropriate amount on equitable basis.
- The
Government left the matter to the Court's discretion, pointing out
that the just satisfaction granted already to the applicant at the
domestic level should be taken into account.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, having regard to
its case-law on the subject and to the fact that the applicant
obtained partial redress at the domestic level, it awards the
applicant EUR 3,200.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum under
this head.
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 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 EUR
3,200 (three thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 26 October 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Lech Garlicki
Deputy Registrar President
