FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF MAJTAS v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 21076/06)
JUDGMENT
This version was rectified on 12 May 2011
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court
STRASBOURG
9 November 2010
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Majtas 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 18 October 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 21076/06) 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, Mr Dušan Majtas (“the applicant”), on 9 May 2006.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr L. Pavlovič, a lawyer practising in Bratislava (until 10 October 2008). The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
3. On 5 May 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 1959 and lives in Bratislava.
5. On 3 September 1996 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava II District Court. He claimed reimbursement of a purchase price.
6. On 4 May 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been violated, awarded him the equivalent of 1,782 euros (EUR) at that time as just satisfaction, ordered the court concerned to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
7. On 30 May 2006 the district court delivered a judgment.
8. On 31 October 2007 the Bratislava Regional Court, on the defendant's appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for further examination to the district court.
9. On 22 September 2009 the district court delivered a judgment. Following the defendant's appeal, the proceedings are pending before the Regional Court.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
10. 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
11. The Government argued that the redress awarded by the Constitutional Court had been sufficient and that the applicant should have lodged a fresh complaint in respect of the subsequent period.
12. The applicant reiterated his complaint.
13. At the time of the Constitutional Court's finding of 2005 the proceedings had lasted 8 years and 8 months at one level 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. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
14. 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).
15. 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).
16. 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 on 4 May 2005 that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. It notes that following the Constitutional Court's finding the proceedings have been pending for another 5 years and more than 4 months at two levels of jurisdiction. The Court finds that further delays occurred.
17. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
18. 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.”
19. In the application form submitted on 9 May 2006 the applicant claimed EUR 16,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses.
20. On 1 September 2008, after the application had been communicated to the respondent Government and the parties informed that the admissibility and merits of the case would be examined at the same time, the Court invited the applicant to submit his claims for just satisfaction by 13 October 2008. The relevant part of the Registry's letter reads as follows:
“With regard to just-satisfaction claims, I would draw your attention to Rule 60 and would remind you that failure to submit within the time allowed quantified claims, together with the required supporting documents, entails the consequence that the Chamber will either make no award of just satisfaction or else reject the claim in part. This applies even if the applicant has indicated her wishes concerning just satisfaction at an earlier stage of the proceedings.”
21. On 31 October 2008, within the extended time-limit, the applicant stated that he fully relied on his previous submissions in respect of Article 41 of the Convention.
22. On 24 November 2008 the Government contested the claims stating that the applicant had failed to specify them in accordance with Article 60 of the Rules of Court and support any of his claims by evidence. They therefore requested the Court to make no award under Article 41 of the Convention. In any event, the Government considered all the claims exaggerated.
23. On 4 December 2008 the applicant reiterated his claims as stated in the application form.
A. Damage
24. Regard being had to the applicant's explicit reference to the claims indicated in the application form and the circumstances of the case, the Court awards the applicant EUR 5,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
25. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In absence of any documents supporting the applicant's claims, the Court makes no award under this head.
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[1], EUR 5,800 (five thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 9 November 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş AracıLech Garlicki
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1]. Rectified on 12 May 2011 : the clause “from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention” was deleted.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy