Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)221[1]
Stavebna spolochnost Tatry Poprad against the Slovak Republic
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 7261/06, judgment of 3 May 2011, final on 3 August 2011)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)782E);
Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment and noting that no award of just satisfaction was made by the Court in the present case (see document DH-DD(2012)782E);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
ACTION REPORT
App.No.7261/06
Stavebna spolocnost’ Tatry Poprad, s.r.o. v.Slovakia,
judgment of 03/05/2011,final on 03/08/2011
Introductory case summary
The case concerns violation of the applicant company’s right to a court as the Constitutional Court in 2005 rejected the applicant company’s appeal as having been introduced outside the statutory time-limit and thus excluded from its review a part of the applicant company’s arguments concerning the evidence put before the ordinary courts in order to challenge the validity of a construction contract between the applicant company and another company (violation of Article 6 § 1).
I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
As no just satisfaction claims were submitted by the applicant company within the given time-limit, the Court made no award under Article 41 of the Convention (see § 56 of the judgment).
The principle of legal certainty means that it would not be appropriate to reopen litigation proceedings at the national level, where this would affect the rights of third parties which were acquired in good faith (third parties in respect of the procedure before the European Court).
The Government also note that the violation of Article 6§1 was limited to a question of damages, which the applicant had the opportunity to claim before the European Court.
In conclusion, the authorities consider that no other individual measure appears necessary.
II. General measures
a) Publication and dissemination
The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justicna Revue) No. 10/2011. The judgment was sent to the President of the Constitutional Court with the request to notify all the constitutional judges thereof.
b) Practice of the Constitutional Court
The current practice of the Constitutional Court is now in line with the conclusions of the European Court in this judgment, as to the right to a court. The Constitutional Court in its decisions of 2010 - 2011 frequently declared the view that in case of concurrent lodging of the appeal on points of law and the constitutional complaint, the constitutional complaint is admissible only after the decision of the Supreme Court on the appeal on points of law. However, the statutory time-limit for lodging of the constitutional complaint is considered to be preserved not only in respect of the decision on appeal on points of law but also in respect of the previous decision against which the appeal on points of law has been lodged (see e.g. I. US 169/09, I. US 55/2011, I. US 84/2010, I. US 153/2010, Ill. US 200/2010, Ill. US 114/2010, II. US 443/2011, II. US 192/2011, Ill. US 369/2011, I. US 275/2011 or Ill. US 57/2011). Consequently, similar violations should not occur in the future.
In conclusion, the authorities consider that no other general measure appears necessary.
Ill. Conclusions of the respondent state
The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention.
In Bratislava, 20 June 2012
Marica Pirosikova
Agent of the Slovak Republic
before the European Court of Human Rights
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy