FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ŠÁRNIK v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 46269/20)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 June 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Šárnik v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Alena Poláčková,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 May 2021,
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 12 October 2020.
2. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
3. The applicant, Mr Vladimír Šárnik, a Slovak national, was born in 1975 and resides in Bernolákovo.
4. On 30 March 2016 he was charged with having caused bodily harm in a road traffic accident. The decision to charge him was quashed by the prosecution on 4 May 2016.
5. The charges were brought again on 13 May, 2 June and 29 November 2016 and quashed by the prosecution on all three occasions. Subsequently, the investigation was assigned to another police officer.
6. The applicant was charged again on 27 December 2016 and indicted on 25 September 2017.
7. The trial court held four hearings (18 April and 24 September 2018, 31 May and 14 June 2019). A hearing originally set for 21 January 2019 was annulled due to a temporary re-assignment of a judge to another court.
8. On 14 June 2019 the trial court acquitted the applicant. The judgment was served on 19 December 2019.
9. On 3 November 2020 the court of second instance upheld the lower court’s judgment, upon which the proceedings were concluded.
10. On 15 July 2020 the Constitutional Court dismissed as manifestly ill‑founded the applicant’s complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings by decision no. IV. ÚS 348/2020. It reviewed separately the length of the pre-trial stage of the proceedings and that of the judicial stage, ruling that the former had ended before the lodging of the constitutional complaint and that the latter had not constituted a breach of the “reasonable time” requirement.
THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
11. The applicant complained that the overall length of the proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
12. The Government submitted that the overall length of four years and seven months had not constituted a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement. They noted that the pre-trial stage had lasted eighteen months, that the trial stage had not been marked with an unreasonable delay and that the proceedings had ended shortly after the Constitutional Court’s decision.
13. The applicant maintained that the length of the criminal proceedings had been excessive. He challenged the allegedly chaotic conduct of the police at the pre-trial stage with their decisions having been repeatedly quashed by the prosecution. He also noted that the trial court judgment had been served on him six months after its pronouncement.
14. The Court reiterates that for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 complaints concerning the length of criminal proceedings, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day on which a person is charged and covers the whole of the proceedings in question, including appeal proceedings (see König v. Germany [GC], no. 6232/73, § 98, 28 June 1978 and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, §§ 18-19, Series A no. 8).
15. The criminal proceedings in question started on 30 March 2016, when the applicant was charged, and ended on 3 November 2020 when the judgment of the trial court was upheld on appeal. The period to be examined is thus four years, seven months and five days for two levels of jurisdiction.
16. 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, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).
17. Nothing in the case file suggests that the case was of any particular complexity or that the applicant was responsible for any of the delays. As per the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes that the decision on charges against the applicant was quashed four times, that one trial hearing was annulled due to the temporary re-assignment of the judge to another court and that the trial court judgment was served on the applicant six months after its pronouncement.
18. In the leading case of Pavlík v. Slovakia (no. 74827/01, 30 April 2007) the Court has already found a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement where the criminal proceedings lasted two years and nine months at a single level of jurisdiction.
19. 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.
20. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
21. 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.”
22. Having regard to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pavlík, cited above), the Court finds it reasonable to award the applicant 2,600 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him.
23. 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,Declares the application admissible;Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings;Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 2,600 (two thousand and six 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 June 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya MaradudinaPéter Paczolay
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy