THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MAXIAN AND MAXIANOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 44482/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 July 2012
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Maxian and Maxianová v. Slovakia,
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 3 July 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 44482/09) 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 two Slovak nationals, Mr J. Maxian and Ms I. Maxianová (“the applicants”), on 12 August 2009.
2. The applicants were represented by Ms M. Beňová, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
3. On 14 March 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.
4. On 1 August 2011 the Agent of the Austrian Federal Government informed the Court that his Government did not wish to exercise the right to intervene under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The first applicant, Mr J. Maxian, is both a Slovakian and Austrian national who was born in 1949. The second applicant, Mr I. Maxianová, is a Slovak national who was born in 1965. The applicants live in Vienna, Austria.
A. Proceedings concerning the applicants’ action of 27 May 1996 (the Dunajská Streda District Court file no. 8 C 105/96)
6. On 27 May 1996 the applicants claimed payment of a sum of money from an individual who used their real property before the Dunajská Streda District Court.
7. On 3 June 2003 the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of a different set of proceedings (file no. 4 C 204/96). Proceedings file no.4 C 204/96 concerned a different claim of the applicants filed to the Dunajská Streda District Court on 19 November 1996. The final decision in those proceedings was given on 10 November 2008.
8. On 9 December 2008 the District Court decided to resume the proceedings file no. 8 C 105/96. It asked the applicants to specify their claim submitted on 27 May 1996.
9. In February 2009 the applicants extended their claim and asked for the case to be joined to a different set of proceedings. They made further submissions in March 2009.
10. On 25 May 2009 the District Court joined the proceedings to those concerning a different claim of the applicants (proceedings file no. 4 C 108/2001).
11. Between February and September 2009 and between October 2009 and August 2010 courts at two levels determined the applicants’ obligation to pay court fees, also in view of the modification of their claim.
12. On 13 December 2010 the District Court decided to examine the applicants’ claims jointly with those submitted in another set of proceedings brought on 29 March 1996 (file no. 9 C 171/96).
13. The proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim of 27 May 1996 are pending before the Dunajská Streda District Court.
B. Constitutional proceedings
1. Judgment III. ÚS 317/06 of 4 September 2007
14. On 4 September 2007 the Constitutional Court found no breach of the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the Dunajská Streda District Court proceedings file no. 8 C 105/96.
15. The judgment stated that the District Court had proceeded with the case until 12 March 1998 and that subsequently the District Court judge had waited for developments in proceedings file no. 4 C 204/96. As from 3 June 2003 proceedings file no. 8 C 105/96 had been stayed.
16. The Constitutional Court noted that the applicants had contributed to the duration of proceedings file no. 8 C 105/96. In particular, they had challenged at a higher instance the District Court judge and a decision on procedural fine.
17. The duration of the proceedings was partly due to the District Court’s failure to proceed in an appropriate manner in the period until March 1998. While it was true that the District Court had not proceeded with the case between 12 March 1998 and 3 June 2003, the Constitutional Court accepted that it had been justified by the need to follow the developments and wait for the outcome in proceedings file no. 4 C 204/96.
2. Judgment II. ÚS 197/02
18. On 16 April 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the Dunajská Streda District Court had breached the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time in proceedings file no. 4 C 204/96 which had been brought on 19 November 1996.
19. The Constitutional Court awarded the applicants the equivalent of EUR 2,656 as just satisfaction. It further ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicants’ costs in the constitutional proceedings.
20. Subsequently the applicants introduced an application in respect of the above proceedings (application no. 50780/11). It is pending before the Court.
3. Judgment II. ÚS 78/06
21. On 24 May 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Dunajská Streda District Court had breached the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time in proceedings file no. 9 C 171/96.
22. Those proceedings concerned the applicants’ civil claim of 29 March 1996. They were formally stayed, on 26 May 2003, pending the outcome of proceedings file no. 4 C 204/96. The Constitutional Court noted that the District Court judge had expressed her intention to wait for the outcome of the last mentioned proceedings. However, a formal decision to stay proceedings file no. 9 C 171/96 had been taken on 26 May 2003, and there had been no progress in the proceedings between January 2000 and 26 May 2003. Such way of dealing with the case was inappropriate.
23. The Constitutional Court awarded the applicants jointly the equivalent of EUR 1,990 as just satisfaction. It further ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicants’ costs in the constitutional proceedings.
4. Judgment II. ÚS 47/09
24. On 24 February 2009 the Constitutional Court found that the Dunajská Streda District Court had breached the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time in proceedings file no. 5 C 171/96.
25. Those proceedings concerned the applicants’ civil claim lodged on 30 September 1996. They were stayed, on 9 September 2003, pending the outcome of proceedings no. 4 C 204/96. In its judgment the Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that the District Court had known that a prejudicial issue was the subject-matter of proceedings 4 C 204/96 in 1997, but it had formally stayed the proceedings only five years later, in 2003. The judgment further stated that the overall length of the proceedings under considerations was excessive.
26. The Constitutional Court awarded the applicants 3,000 euros each as just satisfaction. It further ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicants’ costs in the constitutional proceedings.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
27. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings file no. 8 C 105/96 concerning their action of 27 May 1996 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...”
28. The Government contested that argument.
29. The proceedings complained of started on 27 May 1996 and they have not yet ended. They were stayed for five and half years pending the outcome of a different set of proceedings in respect of the duration of which the applicants sought separately redress before both the Constitutional Court and the Court (see paragraphs 7-8 and 18-20 above).
30. Since the Court is to address in the context of a different application the proceedings which concerned a prejudicial issue, it considers it appropriate not to take into account in the context of the present application the period during which the proceedings complained of were stayed (see, to the contrary, Probstmeier v. Germany, 1 July 1997, §§ 46, 48 and 52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑IV; or Matoušková v. Slovakia, no. 39752/98, § 73, 12 November 2002).
The period to be taken into consideration in the present case has thus exceeded to date ten years for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
31. The Government argued, with reference to the Constitutional Court’s judgment III. ÚS 317/06 of 4 September 2007, that there had been no breach of the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time during the period covered by that judgment. Their complaint in respect of that period was therefore manifestly ill-founded. As to the subsequent period, the Government argued that the applicants should have sought redress by means of a fresh complaint to the Constitutional Court. Since they failed to do so, they did not exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
32. The applicants disagreed with the Government’s arguments.
33. The Court notes that in its judgment III. ÚS 317/06 of 4 September 2007 the Constitutional Court found no breach of Article 6 § 1. However, it reached a conclusion to the contrary in judgments II. ÚS 78/06 and II. ÚS 47/09 in respect of different sets of proceedings in which the position was similar as in the present case (see paragraphs 21, 22, 24 and 25 above). In particular, in judgments II. ÚS 78/06 and II. ÚS 47/09 it qualified as unjustified delays the District Court’s failure to formally stay the proceedings where a prejudicial issue was to be determined in a different set of proceedings. The Court considers the reasons for such conclusion relevant and convincing.
34. In these circumstances, and having regard to the principles established in its practice (see Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 12 July 2008), the Court cannot accept the argument that the applicants should have repeatedly sought redress before the Constitutional Court after the delivery of its judgment III. ÚS 317/06 of 4 September 2007. Accordingly, the Government’s objection must be dismissed.
35. 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
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 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).
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. Among other things the Court notes, in particular, that the merits of the applicants’ action still remain to be determined by the court at first instance.
39. 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
40. 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
41. The applicants claimed jointly 68,896.92 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. They further claimed EUR 8,000 each in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
42. The Government contested these claims.
43. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it awards the applicants EUR 6,000 jointly in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
44. The applicants also claimed EUR 6,844.05 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
45. The Government left the matter to the Court’s discretion.
46. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sum of EUR 2,000 jointly covering costs under all heads.
C. Default interest
47. 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 jointly, within three months, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 July 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena TsirliIneta Ziemele
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy