THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KRELA AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 59644/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 March 2013
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Krela and Others v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Ján Šikuta,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 February 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 59644/09) 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 eight Slovak nationals: Mr Jozef Krela, born in 1950 (“the first applicant”), Mr František Krela, born in 1947 (“the second applicant”), Mr Vladimír Krela, born in 1954 (“the third applicant”), Mr Pavol Krela, born in 1957 (“the fourth applicant”), Ms Elena Babinská, born in 1961 (“the fifth applicant”), Ms Zdenka Krelová, born in 1949 (“the sixth applicant”), Ms Janka Kamenišťáková, born in 1975 (“the seventh applicant”) and Mr Roma Krela, born in 1978 (“the eighth applicant”), on
3 November 2009.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr M. Rojček, a lawyer practising in Žilina. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
3. On 3 May 2010 the application was communicated 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. On 17 July 2001 the first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants together with the legal predecessor of the sixth, seventh and eighth applicants challenged the validity of a real estate purchase contract of 1976 and sought to recover the property in issue.
5. Subsequently the District Court requested the case files concerning inheritance proceedings related to the estate of several applicants’ legal predecessors, appointed a guardian to represent one minor claimant and held two hearings.
6. On 30 May 2003 it dismissed the claim. On 14 October 2003 the case file was transmitted to the Žilina Regional Court for a decision on appeal.
On 3 June 2004 the Žilina Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a new determination. The case file returned to the District Court on 18 July 2004.
7. The District Court scheduled a hearing for 30 November 2006 which was adjourned for 3 October 2007. After the hearing the District Court requested an expert to give opinion on the authenticity of signatures on the purchase contract. The case file was served on the expert on 9 April 2008.
8. After one of the claimants’ death on 26 November 2008, the sixth, seventh and eighth applicant joined the civil proceeding as his legal successors.
9. On 17 December 2008 the District Court granted the claim as far as it concerned the validity of the contract and dismissed the remaining part. The parties appealed against the judgment.
10. On 11 June 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ constitutional length of proceedings complaint for being manifestly
ill-founded. It held that the periods of inactivity of the District Court had not resulted in delays incompatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
11. On 15 July 2010 the Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment and returned the case to the latter for a new determination.
12. On 22 November 2010 the District Court dismissed the claim and on 20 December 2010 it amended its judgement. The applicants appealed.
13. The proceedings are pending.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
14. The applicants 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
15. The Government relied on the Constitutional Court’s finding of 11 June 2009 and argued that the application, in respect of the period considered by the Constitutional Court, was manifestly ill-founded. They further argued that the applicants should have lodged a fresh constitutional complaint in respect of the subsequent period had they been of the opinion that further delays had occurred.
16. The Court notes that at the time of the Constitutional Court’s decision the proceedings had lasted seven years and more than ten months for two levels of jurisdiction. It also notes that the applicants directed their constitutional complaint exclusively against the District Court which dealt with the case at that time. The Court further notes that the proceedings before the District Court alone lasted some seven years.
17. Even if it takes exclusively into consideration the length of the proceedings before the District Court, the Court cannot accept their duration as being justified.
18. Since the applicants were unable to obtain redress before the Constitutional Court in respect of a substantial part of the proceedings, the Court concludes that, as regards the length of the proceedings which followed the Constitutional Court’s decision, the applicants were not required, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, to have again recourse to the remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution (see the recapitulation of the relevant principles in Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007). The Government’s objections must therefore be dismissed.
19. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
20. 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
21. 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).
22. 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
23. 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
24. The applicants claimed 2,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
25. The Government left the matter to the Court’s discretion.
26. The Court considers that the applicants must have sustained non‑pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court considers that it should award the full sum claimed.
B. Costs and expenses
27. The applicants also claimed EUR 800 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Constitutional Court and EUR 1,600 for those incurred before the Court.
28. The Government argued that compensation should be paid only for reasonably incurred costs and expenses.
29. The Court notes that the applicants submitted legal fees agreements with their lawyer stating that they were under a legal obligation to pay the above some together with copies of documents showing payment of the fees. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers that the sum claimed should be awarded in full. In conclusion, the Court awards jointly to the applicants EUR 2,400.
C. Default interest
30. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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 applicants, within three months, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to each applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,400 (two thousand four hundred euros) jointly to the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 March 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena TsirliLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy