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 BÍRO v. SLOVAKIA (No. 3)
(Application
no. 22050/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18
May 2010
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 Bíro v. Slovakia (no. 3),
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and
Lawrence Early,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 27 April 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 22050/05) 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 Dušan
Bíro (“the applicant”), on 11 June 2005.
- The
Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
- On
16 March 2007 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 1951 and lives in Bratislava.
A. Civil proceedings initiated by the applicant
- On
24 May 2000 the applicant sued a company before the Bratislava I
District Court. He claimed that the defendant should be ordered to
comply with its contractual obligations and to compensate damage
caused to the applicant. Courts at two levels of jurisdiction dealt
with mainly procedural issues (such as payment of court fees and
request for legal assistance) until 26 May 2008 when the Bratislava
Regional Court, on appeal, discontinued the proceedings as the
applicant had not paid the court fees of 10,270 Slovakian korunas
(SKK) the equivalent of 340 euros (EUR) at the time. The applicant
lodged an appeal on points of law on 3 July 2008.
The proceedings are still pending.
B. Constitutional proceedings
- The
applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of
the above proceedings. On 6 July 2002 the Constitutional Court
rejected the applicant’s request for a legal-aid lawyer, with
reference to the applicant’s financial situation. As the
latter had not appointed a lawyer, his complaint was declared
inadmissible on 10 July 2002.
- On
10 November 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected, for the same
reason, the applicant’s fresh request for a legal-aid lawyer to
be appointed. The applicant subsequently appointed a lawyer to
represent him in the constitutional proceedings and paid SKK 10,000
to that lawyer.
- On
20 April 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court
had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of
the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. It awarded
the applicant SKK 30,000 (the equivalent of EUR 755 at that time) as
just satisfaction and ordered the District Court to avoid any further
delay. The applicant’s lawyer requested reimbursement of SKK
14,028 in respect of legal costs. The Constitutional Court ordered
the District Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs by
paying SKK 11,991 to the lawyer.
- The
applicant complained that the legal costs should have been reimbursed
directly to him. In a letter of 16 February 2006 a constitutional
judge explained to the applicant that it had been the practice of
the Constitutional Court to order the payment of costs of
successful applicants to the bank account of their legal
representatives. The details were subject to the agreement between
the individual applicants and their lawyers.
- In
the subsequent period the applicant lodged with the Constitutional
Court several complaints about the length of the proceedings. They
were declared inadmissible on 30 November 2006 (for non-compliance
with formal requirements as the applicant was not legally
represented) and on 16 December 2008 (the applicant complained
exclusively about a period of the proceedings which had already
ended). According to the internet database of the Constitutional
Court’s decisions, the applicant’s latest complaint was
rejected on 21 October 2009 for the same reason.
- On
6 March 2008 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible as
being manifestly ill-founded another complaint. The applicant alleged
a violation of Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 in that, on 30
March 2007, the Regional Court, on appeal, had not exempted him
from the obligation to pay the court fees and had dismissed his
request for a legal-aid lawyer in civil proceedings. The
Constitutional Court held that the Regional Court had not refused to
deal with the applicant’s appeal, but examined it and upheld
the first-instance decision. It observed that it took the Regional
Court six months to decide on the appeal and that period could not be
considered excessive within the meaning of Article 6 § 1.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
- The
applicant complained about the length of the proceedings and relied
on 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
- The
Government argued that in view of the Constitutional Court’s
judgment of 2005 the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim
of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable
time. In their opinion, the applicant had not exhausted domestic
remedies as to the subsequent period, as he had not lodged a
fresh constitutional complaint in accordance with the formal
requirements.
- The
applicant reiterated his complaint.
- The
proceedings in the present case started on 24 May 2000 and are still
pending. It follows that the period under consideration has exceeded
nine and a half years at three levels of jurisdiction. The Court has
examined similar cases against Slovakia on a number of occasions.
Considering its established case-law on the subject it
concludes that, in view of the Constitutional Court’s
judgment of 2005, the applicant did not lose his status as a
victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
Accordingly, he was not required to again resort to the complaint
procedure under Article 127 of the Constitution in respect of the
period after that judgment (see Becová v. Slovakia
(dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007).
- 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.
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 materials submitted to it and having regard to its
case-law on the subject, the Court concurs with the view expressed by
the Constitutional Court on 20 April 2005 that in the instant case
the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the
“reasonable time” requirement. It observes that the
proceedings are still pending and finds further delays in the period
of the proceedings after the Constitutional Court’s judgment of
2005.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. REMAINING COMPLAINTS RAISED BY THE APPLICANT
- Under
Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention the applicant complained
that his right to a fair hearing had been violated in that
(i) the District Court had proceeded with the case in an
arbitrary manner and (ii) the Constitutional Court had refused to
appoint a lawyer to represent the applicant free of charge and
had failed to order the reimbursement of the legal costs
directly to the applicant. The applicant
finally complained that he had not had an effective remedy at his
disposal within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.
- However,
in the light of all the materials in its possession, and in so far as
the matters complained of are within its competence
or have not already been addressed in the context of the above
finding of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention,
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 (see also Šidlová
v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99, § 77,
26 September 2006 and Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom,
judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, §
52).
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
applicant claimed 30,117 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage
and EUR 33,194 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 this 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 the fact that the applicant obtained partial
redress from the Constitutional Court, it awards him EUR 2,000.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 337 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Constitutional Court and EUR 109 for those incurred before
the Court.
- The
Government contested the claims. They argued that the amount of
11,991 SKK (the equivalent of EUR 399) had been paid to
the applicant’s lawyer on the basis of the Constitutional
Court’s judgment and that the claims in respect of the costs
incurred before the Court had been submitted outside the given
time-limit.
-
The Court accepts the Government’s argument as regards
the applicant’s costs and expenses before the
Constitutional Court. It therefore makes no award in this respect. It
notes that the applicant’s claims in respect of the expenses
incurred before the Court were submitted outside the allotted time.
It, however, takes into account that the invoice for translation
services amounting to EUR 30 concerned translation into Slovak of the
Government’s comments on the applicant’s claims for just
satisfaction. As the relevant document was sent to the applicant
after the expiry of the relevant time-limit, the applicant could
not submit the invoice for its translation on time. In view of the
above the Court finds it reasonable to award EUR 30 in respect of the
costs 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 under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention 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
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts:
(i)
EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable,
in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 30 (thirty euros) 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 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 18 May 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
