THIRD SECTION
CASE OF TNS s.r.o. v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 15702/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
31 May 2012
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of TNS s.r.o. 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 10 May 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 15702/10) 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 TNS s.r.o., a limited liability company with its registered office in Dubnica nad Váhom.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms Z. Čížová, a lawyer practising in Bánovce nad Bebravou. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
3. On 29 August 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. On 10 April 2006 the applicant company sued a different company for a sum of money before the Bardejov District Court. In May 2006 the applicant company paid the court fee. In July 2006 it modified its claim.
5. The District Court held the first hearing on 31 October 2006. On 6 December 2006 the defendant company submitted its observations. On 19 November 2007, 17 January 2008 and 15 April 2008 the case was adjourned at the request of the defendant’s representative.
6. The second hearing was held on 7 May 2008. In June and September 2008 the applicant company asked for the proceedings to be accelerated.
7. On 2 October 2008 the case was assigned to a different judge. A hearing which was scheduled for 22 January 2009 was adjourned at the request of the defendant’s representative. Another hearing was scheduled for 12 March 2009.
8. On 9 April 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant company’s request about the duration of the proceedings. It held that, despite a shorter period of inactivity, there had been no significant delays in the proceedings in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalent. The decision stated that the applicant company had modified its action, that it had submitted documentary evidence in the course of the proceedings, and that it had also limited the court in scheduling of hearings.
9. Further hearings before the District Court were held on 8 June 2009 and 9 September 2009. On the latter date it delivered a judgment against which the defendant appealed on 29 October 2009.
10. The file was submitted to the Prešov Regional Court on 27 November 2009. On 9 February 2010 the court of appeal quashed the first-instance judgment. The decision was served on parties on 24 March 2010.
11. On 15 July 2010 the applicant asked for the case to be proceeded with. Hearings before the District Court were scheduled for 21 September 2010 and 13 December 2010. They were adjourned at the request of the defendant’s representative.
12. The District Court heard the parties on 5 April 2011. Subsequently the parties submitted documentary evidence. Another hearing was held on 23 June 2011. In July 2011 and September 2011 the parties submitted further observations and evidence. The District Court scheduled a hearing for 13 December 2011.
13. On 13 January 2012 the Government informed the Court that the proceedings were pending.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
14. The applicant company complained that the length of the proceedings 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 ...”
15. The Government contested that argument.
16. The period to be taken into consideration began on 10 April 2006 and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted six years for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
17. The Government argued that there had been no delays contrary to Article 6 § 1 in the period covered by the Constitutional Court’s decision of 9 April 2009. As regards the subsequent period, it was open to the applicant to seek redress by means of a fresh constitutional complaint. In any event, the length of the proceedings was imputable mainly to the defendant’s conduct.
18. In view of the documents before it the Court considers that the applicant company did not obtain appropriate redress following its complaint to the Constitutional Court. It was therefore not required to file a second complaint to the Constitutional Court in respect of the subsequent period (see also Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007, with further references). Accordingly, the Government’s objection must be dismissed.
19. 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
20. 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, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
21. 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).
22. 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings, notwithstanding the fact that it was in part imputable to the conduct of the defendant, 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
23. 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
24. The applicant claimed 33,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
25. The Government left the matter to the Court’s discretion.
26. The Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
27. Submitting documentary evidence, the applicant also claimed EUR 292.38 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Constitutional Court and EUR 719.52 for those incurred before the Court.
28. The Government left the matter to the Court’s discretion.
29. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,000 covering costs under all heads.
C. Default interest
30. 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 applicant, within three months, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, 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 applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 31 May 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena TsirliIneta Ziemele
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy