FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ROTH NEVEĎALOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 50525/21)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 March 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Roth Neveďalová v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Gilberto Felici, President,
Alena Poláčková,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 March 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Slovakia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 11 October 2021.
2. The applicant, a Slovak national, was represented by Mr O. Urban, a lawyer practising in Bratislava.
3. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of the civil proceedings, held before two levels of jurisdiction, concerning her action for defamation against a renowned web publisher. The applicant also complained that the Constitutional Court had segmented the period under examination and had failed to consider the overall length of the proceedings in accordance with the Court’s case-law. The impugned period started on 18 July 2014 when the action was lodged, and the proceedings are currently pending before the appellate court.
6. On 17 August 2021 the Constitutional Court dismissed the part of the applicant’s constitutional complaint directed against the proceedings before the first-instance court as manifestly ill-founded and accepted for further examination the part directed against the proceedings before the appellate court. On 5 October 2021 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the reasonable time requirement by the appellate court, ordered it to proceed without delay and awarded the applicant 700 euros (EUR) in just satisfaction, as asked for by her for the delays before the appellate court (IV. ÚS 399/2021).
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicant complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
8. The Government argued that the Constitutional Court had examined the overall length of the proceedings and found its part before the first-instance court not excessive to amount to a violation. Therefore, the applicant’s complaint in this part was manifestly ill-founded. As for the proceedings before the appellate court, it relied on the Court’s inadmissibility decision in Kuchta and Kuchtová v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 33658/05, 31 August 2010) and asserted that the awarded redress corresponded to the just satisfaction claimed by the applicant. Since the Constitutional Court was bound by the summary of the applicant’s constitutional complaint, it could not award more than requested. Therefore, the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violations but can always turn again to the Constitutional Court if the delays persist.
9. As regards the applicant’s victim status, the Court notes that the Constitutional Court examined the length of the impugned proceedings before both levels of jurisdiction separately, having thus failed to examine the overall length of the proceedings, a practice which the Court has repeatedly found in contravention with the Convention requirements (see, for example, A.R., spol. s r.o. v. Slovakia, no. 13960/06, §§ 35 et seq., 9 February 2010, and Hoholm v. Slovakia, no. 35632/13, §§ 56-58, 13 January 2015). Additionally, the Court observes that in the present case the Constitutional Court dismissed the part of the applicant’s constitutional complaint regarding the length of the proceedings before the first-instance court, which was relevant for the determination of the just satisfaction sought by the applicant (contrary to Kuchta and Kuchtová, cited above, in which the Constitutional Court did not dismiss the constitutional complaint in the relevant part and awarded the requested just satisfaction in full).
10. The Court notes that at the time of the Constitutional Court’s decision the proceedings had lasted approximately seven years and two months at two levels of jurisdiction, and they seem to be still pending. The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant EUR 700 in just satisfaction. This amount is disproportionately low, having regard to what the Court generally awards in similar cases. The redress obtained by the applicant at the domestic level 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 can accordingly still claim to be a “victim” of a breach of the “reasonable time” requirement.
11. 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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
12. In the leading case of Obluk v. Slovakia, (no. 69484/01, 20 September 2006), the Court has already found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention given an excessive length of the proceedings.
13. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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.
14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW15. The applicant submitted another complaint which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). That complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that the complaint also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Hoholm (cited above).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OFa THE CONVENTION16. 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.”
17. 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,
Declares the application admissible;Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards another complaint raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table;
(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 30 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Gilberto Felici
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Domestic court
File numbers
Domestic award
(in euros)
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
50525/21
11/10/2021
Katarína ROTH NEVEĎALOVÁ
1982
Ondrej Urban
Bratislava
18/07/2014
pending
More than 8 years, 5 months and 26 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
Constitutional Court
IV. ÚS 399/2021-63 and IV. ÚS 399/2021-38
700
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings
The applicant complains that the Constitutional Court did not sufficiently consider the overall length.
The Constitutional Court indeed segmented the proceedings, which is a practice at odds with that of the Court (see Hoholm v. Slovakia, no. 35632/13, §§ 56-58, 13 January 2015).
3,900
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.