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 KOCIANOVÁ
v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)
(Application
no. 45167/06)
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 Kocianová v. Slovakia (no. 2),
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza,
President,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša
Vučinić, 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. 45167/06) 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, Ms Viera Kocianová (“the applicant”),
on 31 October 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr T. Šafárik, a lawyer
practising in Košice. The Slovak Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs
M. Pirošíková.
- On
5 March 2009 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was 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 1959 and lives in Viničné.
- On
30 September 1997 she lodged an action against a limited liability
company with the Bratislava Regional Court. She requested that
the decisions, which had been adopted at the general meeting of
the company members held on 1 July 1997, be declared void.
- On
24 February 2004 the Constitutional Court found a violation of
the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded her the
equivalent of 985 euros (EUR) (at that time) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, ordered the Regional Court to proceed without
further delay and to reimburse the applicant’s costs.
- On
2 September 2004 the civil proceedings were discontinued on
the ground that the defendant company had been dissolved and
wound up. In the absence of an appeal, the decision became final
on 20 October 2004.
- On
18 January 2006 the Constitutional Court rejected a fresh complaint
lodged on 6 December 2004 as being manifestly ill-founded (as to
the length of proceedings) and for non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies (as to the alleged unfairness of the proceedings and
interference with the applicant’s property rights). The
decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 5 May
2006.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AS TO 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:
“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 24 February 2004 the applicant could no longer claim to
be a victim of a violation of her right to a hearing within a
reasonable time.
- The
applicant reiterated her complaint.
- At
the time of the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 2004 the
proceedings had lasted six years and five months. Their overall
duration was seven years and one month at one level of jurisdiction.
In view of its established case-law (see, among many others, Becová
v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September
2007), the Court finds that the applicant can still be considered a
victim and thus dismisses the Government’s objection. The Court
further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and 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 24 February 2004 that in the instant case
the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the
“reasonable time” requirement. It does not find further
delays in the period after the Constitutional Court’s
judgment.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
- The
applicant complained that the manner, in which the Regional Court had
dealt with the case, had been contrary to her rights guaranteed under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- However,
in the light of all the materials 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.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed EUR 82,984.79 in respect of pecuniary and
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.
Considering the fact that the applicant obtained partial redress at
domestic level, it awards her EUR 1,300 for non-pecuniary damage
suffered.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant claimed EUR 400 for the legal costs incurred before the
Court. The applicant’s lawyer explained that the applicant
would be asked to pay that amount after the end of the proceedings
before the Court.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- 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 were
reasonable as to quantum. In the absence of any evidence to support
the applicant’s claim as to costs and expenses, no award is
made 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 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,
EUR 1,300 (one thousand three 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 18 May 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
