THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SMOLKO v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 62906/16)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 March 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Smolko v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 March 2018,
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”) by a Slovak national Mr Martin Smolko on 25 October 2016.
2. The applicant was represented by JUDr. Michal Polák, a lawyer practising in Bratislava.
3. On 9 February 2017 the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings was communicated to the Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
4. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Trnava.
5. He complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings concerning the alleged discrimination in remuneration and the claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The proceedings were initiated on 5 May 2008 before the Bratislava I District Court, have been processed before two levels of jurisdiction, and are still pending.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant complained that the length of the civil 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 his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal ...”
A. Admissibility
7. The Government objected that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not applicable to the proceedings at hand because the claim asserted by the applicant had no basis in the national law as interpreted by the domestic courts.
8. The applicant disagreed.
9. The Court observes that the right to equal treatment is recognised under the domestic law and that it is accompanied by a procedural right to seek judicial protection against interference with it, as well as the right to claim compensation for non‑pecuniary damage. Insofar as the Government’s argument has been substantiated, the Court has found no indication that any claims similar to that of the applicant have been dismissed at the domestic level on account of lacking legal basis (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 41, ECHR 2007‑II, with further references). The Court therefore considers that the applicant’s claim was, at least on arguable grounds, recognised under domestic law and the Government’s preliminary objection must be dismissed. It further notes that the application is not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
10. 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).
11. In the leading case of Obluk v. Slovakia (no. 69484/01, 20 September 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
12. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the merits of this complaint. 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.
13. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Obluk v. Slovakia, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.
16. 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 the application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 29 March 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Domestic court
File number
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
62906/16
25/10/2016
Martin Smolko
26/12/1974
Michal Polák
Bratislava
05/05/2008
pending
More than 9 years and 9 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
(Constitutional Court /
II. ÚS 368/2016)
2,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy