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 BRUŇOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 9401/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 November 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bruňová 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 2 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 9401/07) 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, Ms Terézia Bruňová (“the
applicant”), on 6 February 2007.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr R. Soták, a lawyer practising
in Michalovce. The Government of the Slovak Republic
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs
M. Pirošíková.
- On
24 February 2010 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol no. 14,
the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
- The
Government objected to the examination of the application by
a Committee. After having considered the Government's objection,
the Court rejects it.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Michalovce.
- On
23 March 2000 she lodged an action against a private company for
determination of the amount of her salary. The case was dealt with by
the Michalovce District Court and also by the Košice Regional
Court, which quashed part of the first-instance judgment and remitted
the case to the District Court.
- On
24 August 2006 the Constitutional Court found no violation of the
applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. As the
applicant complained exclusively about the period of the proceedings
before the Michalovce District Court, the Constitutional Court
examined only that period (approximately four years and a half).
- The
proceedings were then pending before the District Court and the
Košice Regional Court. On 3 December 2008 the District Court
discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had
withdrawn her claim. The decision became final on 3 February 2009.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the 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 relied on the Constitutional Court's finding of 24 August
2006 and argued that the applicant should have lodged a fresh
constitutional complaint in respect of the subsequent period.
- At
the time of the Constitutional Court's judgment the period of the
proceedings of which the applicant had complained lasted four years
and a half for one level of jurisdiction. Subsequently courts at
two levels of jurisdiction dealt with the case for another two years
and five months. In view of its established case-law (see Becová
v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September
2007), the Court notes that 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.
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 reiterates that special diligence is
necessary in employment disputes (Ruotolo v. Italy, judgment
of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D, p. 39, § 17).
- 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 materials 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. 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.”
- On
7 July 2010, after the application had been communicated to the
respondent Government and the parties informed that the admissibility
and merits of the case would be examined at the same time, the Court
invited the applicant to submit her claims for just satisfaction by
18 August 2010. The applicant did not submit any just
satisfaction claims within the time-limit fixed by the Court. The
Court, therefore, makes no award under Article 41 of the Convention
(see, for example, A. R., spol. s r. o. v. Slovakia,
no. 13960/06, §§ 62-65, 9 February 2010, with further
references).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 November 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Lech Garlicki
Deputy Registrar President
