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 KAŠČÁK v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 280/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 2010
This judgment is final but it
may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kaščák 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 9 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 280/06) 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 Ján Kaščák (“the
applicant”), on 19 December 2005.
- The
Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
- On
7 February 2008 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 FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Prešov.
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised
as follows.
- On
23 March 2000 the applicant claimed a sum of money before the Prešov
District Court.
7. On
5 April 2001 the District Court issued a payment order in
summary proceedings. As the defendant filed an objection to the
order, the court started dealing with the case in ordinary
proceedings.
- On
10 November 2004 the District Court dismissed the action.
On 10 February 2005 it submitted the case to the court of
appeal following the applicant's appeal.
- On
24 August 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court
had violated the applicant's right under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. The case was not
complex and the applicant by his conduct had contributed to the
length of the proceedings by not responding to a District Court'
request and by asking for adjournment of three hearings. The
Constitutional Court also concluded that the District Court had
failed to proceed with the case in an efficient manner. It held that
in view of the very simple legal question to be determined and the
value of the claim, the court was obliged to organise its work in a
way enabling it to decide the case within one hearing.
- The
Constitutional Court refused to award the applicant just satisfaction
in respect of non-pecuniary damage since the case had already been
decided by the first-instance court and the applicant had contributed
to the length of the proceedings. It ordered the District Court to
avoid any further delay in the proceedings (should the case be
returned to it) and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
- On
14 September 2005 the court of appeal upheld the first-instance
judgment.
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 expressed the view that the applicant could no longer
claim to be a victim of the alleged violation. They referred to the
Constitutional Court's findings in respect of its refusal to award
any compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
- The
applicant disagreed.
- The
Court observes that at the time of the Constitutional Court's
judgment, the proceedings had been pending before the District Court
for five years, ten months and twenty one days.
- It
should be noted that although the Constitutional Court found
a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing without
unjustified delay, it awarded no financial compensation in respect of
his non-pecuniary damage.
- It
remains to be assessed whether the above redress can be considered
appropriate and sufficient (see, for example, Jensen v. Denmark
(dec.), no. 48470/99, 20 March 2003).
- The
Court reiterates that whether the redress afforded to the applicant
was adequate and sufficient having regard to Article 41 of the
Convention falls to be determined in the light of the principles
established under the Court's 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, §§
65-107, ECHR 2006-V). These include, most notably, the amount of the
compensation awarded to the applicant and the effectiveness of the
preventive measure applied (see Sika v. Slovakia (no. 3),
no. 26840/02, § 54, 23 October 2007).
- There is a strong but rebuttable presumption that
excessively long proceedings will occasion non-pecuniary damage.
However, in some cases, the non-pecuniary damage may be only minimal
or none at all (see Nardone v. Italy, no. 34368/98, 25
November 2004). The domestic courts will then have to justify their
decision by giving sufficient reasons (see Scordino v. Italy
(no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 204, ECHR 2006-V).
- The
Court observes that the Constitutional Court supported the dismissal
of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction by the applicant's
contribution to the length of the proceedings. Another part of the
Constitutional Court's reasoning, which concerns the District Court's
conduct in the proceedings, concludes that the court, despite
scheduling several hearings, had failed to proceed effectively.
- Taking
into account all circumstances of the case, in particular the simple
character of the dispute and the duration of the proceedings at one
level of jurisdiction, the Court finds the reasons for conclusion
that no financial compensation was necessary for the applicant's
non-pecuniary damage insufficient.
- Having
regard to the facts of the case and to the principles established in
its case-law, the Court considers that the redress obtained by the
applicant at the domestic level was not adequate and sufficient. 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.
- 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.
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.
- 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. 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 173 euros (EUR) with interest in respect of
pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that there was no causal link between the
pecuniary damage claimed and the alleged violation and that the
applicant's claim concerning non-pecuniary damage was overstated.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage. The Court considers that it should award the
full sum claimed.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 73 for translation costs.
- The
Government pointed to the fact that the applicant failed to support
his claim by any evidence.
- Regard
being had to the fact that the applicant failed to submit any
supporting documents establishing his liability to pay the sum
claimed or the actual payment of the sum, the Court rejects the claim
for costs and expenses.
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 application admissible;
- 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
2,500 (two thousand five 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Lech Garlicki
Deputy Registrar President
