THIRD SECTION
CASE OF LADUNA v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)
(Application no. 13439/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 October 2012
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Laduna v. Slovakia (no. 2),
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ineta Ziemele, President,
Ján Šikuta,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 September 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 13439/10) 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 Peter Laduna (“the applicant”), on 1 March 2010.
2. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
3. On 7 July 2011 and 28 March 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1973. He is serving a prison term in Ilava prison.
A. Proceedings file no. 6 C 345/2008 before the Piešťany District Court
5. On 14 October 2003 the applicant lodged an action with the Nitra District Court. He claimed that the defendant should be ordered to apologise for statements accusing the applicant of an offence and to pay compensation.
6. On 28 May 2004 the case-file was transmitted to the Pieštany District Court due to local jurisdiction. That court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees on 6 September 2004. It obtained a statement from the defendant on 15 October 2004.
7. On 23 June 2005 the case-file was transmitted to the Trnava District Court due to reorganisation of the judicial system. In the course of 2006 and the first half of 2007 it examined the applicant’s situation in view of his request for exemption from court fees. It also established the address of the defendant to whom it sent the action for observations on 22 June 2007. The applicant replied to the defendant’s observations on 24 September 2007.
8. On 1 April 2008 the case-file was returned to the Piešťany District Court due to restructuring of the judiciary. On 11 December 2008 that court inquired about the applicant’s financial situation. On the basis of a reply of 12 January 2009 the Piešťany District Court, on 10 June 2009, decided (i) that the applicant was obliged to pay the court fees, and (ii) not to appoint a legal aid lawyer to the applicant.
9. On 13 November 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint about the duration of the proceedings. It admitted certain periods of inactivity which, however, were not such as to amount to a breach of the applicant’s constitutional right to a hearing without unjustified delay.
10. On 30 November 2009 the Trnava Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s decision of 10 June 2009. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law.
11. On 5 February 2010 the Piešťany District Court discontinued the proceedings on the applicant’s action as the latter had not paid the court fee. On 26 February 2010 the applicant appealed. On 21 January 2011 the Trnava Regional Court upheld the decision to discontinue the proceedings. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law.
12. On 28 May 2012 the Piešťany District Court referred the applicant to the Centre for Legal Assistance with his request for legal assistance in the proceedings on his appeal on points of law. On 1 August 2012 the applicant informed the Court that his request for a lawyer to be appointed to represent him had not yet been determined by the Centre for Legal Assistance. The proceedings on the appeal on points of law are pending.
13. On 7 February 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s second complaint as having been lodged out of time. It considered the complaint to be directed, in substance, against the Piešťany District Court and held that the proceedings complained of had ended with final effect. The constitutional review of their duration was therefore excluded.
B. Proceedings file no. SA 8 C 205/2004 before the Galanta District Court
1. Proceedings before the ordinary courts
14. On 25 November 2002 the applicant lodged an action with the Nitra District Court. He claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage from an individual.
15. On 23 September 2003 the Nitra District Court rejected the action holding that the applicant had failed to remedy its formal shortcomings. On 27 November 2003 the Nitra Regional Court quashed that decision and returned the case at first instance. In the meantime, on 23 October 2003, the applicant re-submitted his claim to the Nitra District Court.
16. Subsequently several decisions were taken at two levels with a view to establishing which court had jurisdiction to deal with the case. It was ultimately assigned to the Galanta District Court which received the file on 19 May 2005.
17. The District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay the court fee on 26 October 2005. Between September 2005 and April 2006 the District Court obtained information about the factual background to the case. On 3 May 2006 it stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings which it considered relevant for determination of the applicant’s civil action (see paragraphs 25-26 below).
18. On 16 April 2008 the applicant modified his action. He also asked for a lawyer to be appointed to represent him in the proceedings. The District Court granted that request on 4 September 2008.
19. On 4 June 2009 the District Court received the criminal courts’ files. It decided to resume the civil proceedings on 16 July 2009.
20. Between July 2009 and July 2011 the District Court scheduled six hearings and it made arrangements for questioning the applicant in prison. On 17 December 2009 the applicant modified his claim. In June 2011 he challenged the District Court judge. The request was dismissed by the Trnava Regional Court on 5 October 2011.
21. Subsequently the judge sought arrangements with the prison administration with a view to ensuring the applicant’s attendance at a hearing. On 3 May 2012 the applicant’s lawyer was asked to specify the questions to be put to witnesses. The proceedings are pending.
2. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
22. On 1 July 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the length of the civil proceedings concerning the above action. It noted that the Galanta District Court had proceeded with the case without unjustified delays and that it had to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings in which criminal charges against the applicant were to be determined.
23. On 13 November 2009 the Constitutional Court declared manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s second complaint about the length of the proceedings. It held that the District Court had resumed its dealing with the case following the determination of the criminal charges against the applicant.
24. On 27 July 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s third complaint about the length of the proceedings as being manifestly ill‑founded. It held that there had been no significant delays in the proceedings in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalent.
3. Criminal proceedings (the Nitra Regional Court files no. 1 T 1/2005 and 1 T 2/2005)
25. In proceedings which had the file no. 1 T 2/2005 before the Nitra Regional Court the criminal charges against the applicant were determined by criminal courts at three levels on 10 October 2005, 8 February 2006 and 19 March 2007 respectively.
26. In proceedings which had the file no. 1 T 1/2005 before the Nitra Regional Court the criminal charges against the applicant were determined by criminal courts on 17 January 2007 (first instance), 7 November 2007 (court of appeal), 2 March 2009 and 16 June 2010 (cassation court). On 13 November 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about delays in the proceedings before the cassation court.
27. On 24 November 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about unfairness of the above-mentioned two sets of criminal proceedings.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
28. The applicant complained that the length of the above two sets of civil 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. As regards proceedings file no. 6 C 345/2008 before the Piešťany District Court
29. The period to be taken into consideration began on 14 October 2003 and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted eight years and more than ten months for three levels of jurisdiction.
1. Admissibility
30. The Government first objected that the proceedings fell outside the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as they had been discontinued for the applicant’s failure to pay the court fee. Thus the issue which the courts had determined was of a purely procedural nature. It therefore did not concern the determination of the applicant’s civil rights and obligations.
31. In the observations submitted on 22 November 2011 the Government further argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in that he had not filed a fresh constitutional complaint in respect of the period subsequent to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 13 November 2009. In any event, the complaint about the length of the proceedings was manifestly ill-founded.
32. The applicant disagreed.
33. The Court notes that the proceedings concern the applicant’s claim for protection of his personal rights including a claim for damages, i.e. a determination of the applicant’s civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. The fact that the courts at first and second instance decided to discontinue them cannot affect the position (see also Múčková v. Slovakia, no. 21302/02, § 57, 13 June 2006, with further reference).
34. In view of the documents before it the Court considers that the applicant did not obtain appropriate redress following his first complaint to the Constitutional Court which covered the whole period during which the proceedings had been pending at first instance. He was therefore not required to file a second complaint in respect of the period subsequent to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 13 November 2009 (see also Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007, with further references). The fact that, on 7 February 2012, the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s second complaint which concerned the proceedings before the Pieštany District Court cannot affect the position given its above finding of 13 November 2009. Accordingly, the Government’s objection must be dismissed.
35. The Court notes that this part of 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.
2. Merits
36. 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).
37. 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).
38. 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.
B. As regards proceedings file no. SA 8 C 205/2004 before the Galanta District Court
39. The applicant initiated the proceedings on 25 November 2002 and they are still pending. The relevant period has accordingly exceeded nine years and ten months for two levels of jurisdiction it being noted that the proceedings were stayed for three years and two months pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against the applicant (see paragraphs 17 and 19 above).
1. Admissibility
40. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as he had not filed a fresh constitutional complaint in respect of the period subsequent to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 27 July 2011. With reference to the Constitutional Court’s decisions they further maintained that, in any event, the complaint was manifestly ill‑founded as there had been no delays in the proceedings which could be imputed to domestic authorities.
41. The applicant disagreed.
42. The Court notes that the Constitutional Court dismissed as being manifestly ill-founded three complaints of the applicant which covered the duration of the substantial part of the period under consideration (see paragraphs 22-24 above). In these circumstances, the applicant was not required to file another complaint in respect of the period subsequent to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 27 July 2011 (see also paragraph 34 above). The Government’s objection relating to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must therefore be dismissed.
43. The Court notes that this part of 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.
2. Merits
44. The Court notes that in the instant case the applicant by his conduct contributed to the duration of the civil proceedings, and that they were stayed for more than three years pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against the applicant. Having regard to its case-law on the subject (for recapitulation see paragraphs 36-37 above), the Court nevertheless considers that the length of the proceedings complained of 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
45. 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
46. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
47. The Government contested the claim as being excessive.
48. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non‑pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 6,600 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
49. The applicant also claimed EUR 100 for the costs and expenses incurred.
50. The Government considered that any award should be based on the sums which the applicant had actually incurred.
51. The Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum claimed in full.
C. Default interest
52. 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 in both sets of proceedings complained of;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 6,600 (six thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 100 (one hundred 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 2 October 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena TsirliIneta Ziemele
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy