FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BERECOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 31651/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 October 2010
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Berecová 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 28 September 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 31651/06) 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 Adriana Berecová (“the applicant”), on 25 July 2006.
2. The applicant was represented by Mrs I. Rajtáková, a lawyer practising in Košice. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
3. On 23 June 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
4. The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Košice.
5. On 15 March 2002 the applicant lodged an action against her former husband, the municipality of Košice and a third party, challenging the validity of two contracts by which the applicant's former husband had firstly bought an apartment and then sold it to a third party.
6. On 26 October 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's complaint about the length of these proceedings inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.
7. On 12 January 2009 she lodged a fresh constitutional complaint.
8. On 17 March 2009 the Košice II District Court found against the applicant. The applicant appealed.
9. On 21 October 2009 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. Having regard to the overall length of proceedings, it awarded the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's legal costs. It did not order the District Court to proceed with the case on the ground that that court had already adopted a decision on merits.
10. On 4 March 2010 the Košice Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
11. The District Court adopted a judgment in the applicant's favour on 2 July 2010. One of the defendants appealed and the proceedings are still pending.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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
13. The Government agreed with the Constitutional Court's findings of 2005 and 2009 argued that the applicant should have lodged a fresh complaint in respect of the subsequent period.
14. The applicant reiterated her complaint.
15. At the time of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 2009 the proceedings had lasted seven years and seven months at two levels of jurisdiction. They are still pending. 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 and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
16. 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).
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).
18. 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 in 2009 that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. It finds further delays in the period after that judgment.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
19. 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
20. The applicant claimed EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
21. The Government contested that claim.
22. Ruling on an equitable basis and having regard to the fact that the applicant obtained partial redress in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the Court awards EUR 2,200 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
23. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,333.40 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Constitutional Court (as regards the proceedings leading to the decision of 2005) and the Court.
24. The Government contested the claim, arguing that the applicant did not support it by providing any bills or invoices.
25. The Court will make an award in respect of costs and expenses in so far as these were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. The Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 1,000 (see Gerstbrein v. Slovakia, no. 17252/04, § 27, 21 April 2009).
C. Default interest
26. 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
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 2,200 (two thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 October 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş AracıLech Garlicki
Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy