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]
THIRD
SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9845/06
Ioan Kornelij KOMANICKÝ
against
Slovakia
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
13 December 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Ján
Šikuta,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and Santiago Quesada,
Section Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 26 February 2006,
Having
regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and
the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
- The
applicant, Mr Ioan Kornelij Komanický, is a Slovak national
who was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov. The Government of the
Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows:
- On
6 December 1994 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava
City Court raising various claims in relation to his previous
employment. The background to the litigation transpires from the
Court’s decisions and judgments in other of the more than 110
cases that the applicant has thus far brought under the Convention
(see, for example, applications nos. 32106/96, 13677/03, 56161/00,
70977/01, 72092/01, 70494/01 and 54136/08).
- On
14 June 1995 the action was transmitted to the Bardejov District
Court for reasons of territorial jurisdiction, it was registered
there under file no. 4C 263/95 and it has been pending there since.
Meanwhile a number of procedural matters have been determined on the
applicant’s motions, appeals and appeals on points of law at
all levels of ordinary jurisdiction.
- On
31 October 2006 and 10 November 2010 the Constitutional Court ruled
on the applicant’s complaint and a repeated complaint under
Article 127 of the Constitution of delays in the proceedings
caused by the District Court. The Constitutional Court allowed both
complaints, ordered that the District Court proceed with the matter
without delays and awarded the applicant in total 5,200 euros in
compensation for non-pecuniary damage plus reimbursement of costs
COMPLAINTS
- The
applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the
Convention that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and
discriminatory and that he had had no effective remedy in that
respect.
THE LAW
A. Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
excessive in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the
relevant part of which provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
- The
applicant also complained that he had had no effective remedy at his
disposal in respect of the length of the proceedings, contrary to
Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
- The
Government considered that, in view of the redress afforded by the
Constitutional Court, the applicant could no longer claim to be a
victim of a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention.
As
regards any possible subsequent delay in the proceedings, the
applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies by asserting his
rights before the Constitutional Court anew.
The
remedy before the Constitutional Court was compatible with the
requirements of Article 13 of the Convention and the complaint made
in reliance on that provision was therefore manifestly ill founded.
- The
applicant disagreed with the Government, disputed some of the
observations made by the Constitutional Court and reiterated his
complaints. In particular, he argued that the compensatory redress
afforded by the Constitutional Court was insufficient and that the
preventive one was inefficient.
The
applicant concluded that he could still claim to be a victim of
a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time
and that this right had been violated just as had been his right to
an effective remedy.
- The
Court observes that under the judgments of the Constitutional Court
of 31 October 2006 and 10 November 2010 the applicant received
compensation for the violation that he now alleges in respect of his
right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within
a reasonable time.
- In
view of its case-law on the subject (see, in particular, 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) the Court considers the redress afforded to the
applicant by the Constitutional Court acceptable in the Convention
terms. In reaching this conclusion, the Court has taken into account
all elements in its possession, including the context of the present
case and the applicant’s procedural behaviour (see paragraphs 2
and 3 above).
- The
Court finds, therefore, that in respect of the period considered by
the Constitutional Court, the applicant can no longer claim to be a
victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention of a
violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
- Moreover,
in respect of the subsequent period, the applicant should assert his
right to a hearing within a reasonable time by a fresh constitutional
complaint (see Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06,
18 September 2007). By not having done so, the applicant has
failed to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic
remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
- In
view of the above conclusions the Court finally finds that the
applicant does not have an “arguable claim” for the
purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom,
24 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
- This
part of the application must therefore be rejected in accordance with
Article 35 §§ 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
B. Remaining complaints
- The
applicant alleged a violation of his rights protected under
Article 14 of the Convention in connection with the violation
alleged above.
- 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
applicant’s rights under Article 14 of the Convention.
- It
follows that the reminder of the application is manifestly
ill founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35
§§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
