CASE OF LINEA PROPERTY, S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF LINEA PROPERTY, S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

(Application no. 36731/22 and 2 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 July 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of LINEA Property, s.r.o. v. Slovakia,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Frédéric Krenc, President,
 Davor Derenčinović,
 Alain Chablais, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Slovakia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The applicant company was represented by Mr V. Šárnik, a lawyer practising in Bratislava.

3.  The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

4.  The relevant details related to the applicant company and the applications are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicant company complained of the excessive length of various sets of civil proceedings initiated by it on 15 May 2009, domestic file no. 25 Cb 100/2009 (“first civil proceedings”), on 6 June 2005, domestic file no. 23 Cb 82/2005 and the attendant appellate proceedings, domestic file nos. 3 Cob 194/2008, 3 Cob 251/2010, 1 Cob 19/2020 (“second civil proceedings), and on 12 June 2007, domestic file no. 26 C 17/2007 (“third civil proceedings”).

6.  On 15 May 2009 the applicant company lodged an action for the payment of a sum of money. After several rounds of appeals the first-instance court delivered a judgment on 18 February 2021, against which the applicant company appealed on 7 March 2022.

7.  Meanwhile, on 27 February 2022 the applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint challenging the length of the proceedings before both the first-instance and appellate courts.

8.  On 27 April 2022 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant company’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time before the first-instance court, awarded it 3,300 euros (EUR) in just satisfaction and ordered the first-instance court to proceed without further delays. The Constitutional Court did not find a violation of the applicant company’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time before the appellate court. However, as appears from the judgment, the Constitutional Court took into account the total length of the proceedings, stating that they have so far lasted twelve years and nine months which is unacceptable from a constitutional point of view (file no. II. ÚS 115/2022).

9.  The Government’s observations indicate that on 30 June 2022 the case file was transferred to the appellate court where the case appears to have been pending ever since.

10.  On 6 June 2005 the applicant company lodged an action for the payment of a sum of money which was dismissed by the first-instance court on 31 March 2008. After several appeals lodged by the applicant company, as well as by the defendant, the first-instance court again dismissed the applicant company’s action on 11 September 2019. That decision was upheld by the appellate court on 21 September 2021.

11.  On 11 January 2022 the applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law. The first-instance court, on 19 May 2022, invited the applicant company to pay the court fee.

12.  On 6 July 2022 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant company’s constitutional complaint challenging the length of the proceedings before both the first-instance and appellate courts as manifestly ill‑founded, stating that the applicant company had lodged its constitutional complaint on 7 March 2022 and that, at that time, the proceedings had not been pending before the authority responsible for the alleged delays. In assessing the length of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court segmented the proceedings and held that the proceedings before the first-instance court became final on 2 October 2019 and on 12 November 2020. Furthermore, the various rounds of the appeal proceedings ended on 10 August 2009, on 5 April 2011 and on 12 November 2021, respectively. The Constitutional Court also noted that the applicant company had lodged an appeal on points of law (file no. IV. ÚS 368/2022).

13.  On 12 June 2007 the applicant company lodged yet another action for the payment of a sum of money.

14.   The applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint on 30 March 2022, challenging the length of the proceedings before the first‑instance court. On the same day the first-instance court partially granted the action.

15.  Following the applicant company’s appeal, the case was transferred to the appellate court on 17 June 2022, where, according to the Government, it appears to have been pending since.

16.  On 24 November 2022 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant company’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time before the first-instance court and awarded it EUR 3,500 in just satisfaction stating that the length of the proceedings of fifteen years was in itself unacceptable. At the same time, the Constitutional Court criticised the applicant company for not lodging its constitutional complaint earlier and waiting until the day the first-instance court was due to deliver its judgment (IV. US 512/2022).

THE LAW

17.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

18.  The applicant company complained that the length of the various sets of the civil proceedings, described above, had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. It relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

19.  With regard to the first and third civil proceedings, the Government submitted that the applicant company had lost its victim status as a result of the acknowledgment of the violation by the Constitutional Court and the financial compensation awarded. With regard to the first civil proceedings, the Government additionally submitted that the applicant company had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as it had not lodged a new constitutional complaint following the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 27 April 2022. In respect of the second civil proceedings, the Government submitted that given the factual complexity of the proceedings and the contribution of the applicant company to the delays (the applicant company’s representative had requested an adjournment of scheduled hearings on four occasions and missed one hearing), the overall length of the proceedings had been acceptable.

20.  As regards the applicant company’s victim status, the Court notes that at the time of the Constitutional Court’s judgments, the first civil proceedings had lasted almost thirteen years before two levels of jurisdiction and the third civil proceedings had lasted fifteen years before one court level. The applicant company was awarded EUR 3,300 and EUR 3,500 in respect of just satisfaction (see paragraphs 8 and 16 above). Given the overall length of the proceedings in question, the Court finds that such an amount cannot be considered sufficient in the light of the Court’s case-law (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 205-06 and 214-15, ECHR 2006‑V). The applicant company can accordingly still claim to be a “victim” of a breach of the “reasonable time” requirement.

21.  As regards the Government’s plea of non-exhaustion, the Court notes

that repeated recourse to the domestic remedy is not required where the effects produced by the decision of the competent domestic authority do not satisfy the criteria applied by the Court (see Tomláková v. Slovakia, no. 17709/04, §§ 34-35, 5 December 2006). In view of the insufficient amount of just satisfaction awarded to the applicant and the overall length of the proceedings which lasted almost thirteen years before two levels of jurisdiction (see paragraph 8 above), the Court is of the view that the applicant company could not be required to lodge yet another constitutional complaint. The Government’s non-exhaustion objection must therefore be rejected.

22.  The Court further 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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

23.  In the leading case of Obluk v. Slovakia, no. 69484/01, 20 September 2006, the Court already found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

24.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, including the arguments related to allegedly speculative nature of the applicant company’s third constitutional complaint (see paragraph 14 above) and its alleged contribution to the delays, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. The Court also observes that at the time when the Constitutional Court examined the length of the second civil proceedings, the case was still pending before the first-instance court, because the applicant company had lodged an appeal on points of law which the Constitutional Court itself referred to in its decision (see paragraph 12 above and contrast Mazurek v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 16970/05, 3 March 2009). In addition, the Constitutional Court examined the length of the second civil proceedings before each level separately, even though the applicant company had directed the summary of its constitutional complaint against both levels of courts (see Obluk, cited above, §§ 48, 51 and 61). The Constitutional Court has thus failed to examine the overall length of the proceedings, which is a practice the Court has repeatedly found in contravention with the Convention requirements (see, for example, Obluk, cited above, § 60, and Hoholm v. Slovakia, no. 35632/13, §§ 56-58, 13 January 2015).

25.  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.

26.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

27.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Obluk, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table;

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 10 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Frédéric Krenc

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company.