FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 47623/06
by Margaréta CERVANOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 January 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 November 2006,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Margaréta Cervanová, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Nové Zámky. She was represented before the Court by Mrs I. Rajtáková, a lawyer practising in Košice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Criminal proceedings concerning the murder of the applicant’s daughter
In 1976 the applicant’s daughter, a university student, was raped and murdered.
On 22 September 1982 the Bratislava Regional Court convicted several persons of criminal offences committed in the above context. Prison terms of between four and twenty-four years were imposed. On 25 April 1983 the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic upheld the first‑instance judgment. The applicant had joined the criminal proceedings with a claim for damages.
On 19 October 1990 the Supreme Court of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, upon a complaint lodged by the General Prosecutor, quashed the decisions convicting the persons charged. The case was sent back to the Bratislava Regional Court for a fresh examination.
Subsequently the case was dealt with by courts at two levels of jurisdiction. In 1992 the first-instance court decided that the charges against one of the accused would be dealt with in a separate set of proceedings. That set of proceedings was stayed as experts concluded that the accused suffered from a mental disorder (for further details relating to the period up to February 2002 see Andrášik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos. 57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01, 60226/00, ECHR 2002-IX).
On 20 January 2004 the Regional Court in Bratislava delivered a judgment convicting the accused persons (with the exception of the one in respect of whom the proceedings had been stayed). The accused and the public prosecutor appealed. On 23 April 2004 the file was submitted to the Supreme Court.
Between 28 April 2004 and 8 November 2004 the accused made seven submissions with a view to completing the reasons for their appeal.
On 3 May 2006 the Supreme Court had to adjourn the case as the newly appointed counsel of one of the accused had not appeared.
The next hearing was scheduled for 27 September 2006. It was adjourned as the presiding judge was ill.
On 29 November 2006 the Supreme Court heard the final speeches.
On 4 December 2006 the Supreme Court modified the first-instance judgment in that it imposed more severe sentences on three of the convicted persons.
2. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
On 14 December 2004 and on 2 December 2005 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. She alleged a violation of her rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time and under Article 8 of the Convention to respect for her private life in the context of the criminal proceedings concerning the offences committed against her daughter which she had joined with a claim for damages.
On 15 March 2006 the Constitutional Court declared admissible the complaint about the length of the proceedings. It further rejected the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. It admitted that there could be an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings. However, Article 6 § 1 was a lex specialis in the circumstances of the case and there was no direct link between the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention and the actions taken by the ordinary courts in the context of the criminal proceedings in issue.
In a judgment of 14 September 2006 the Constitutional Court found that both the Regional Court in Bratislava and the Supreme Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the above criminal proceedings. It ordered the Regional Court to pay 650,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK)[1] to the applicant as just satisfaction. That sum was payable within two months from the final effect of the judgment. It also ordered the Regional Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs of legal representation in the constitutional proceedings within one month. Finally, the Constitutional Court ordered the Supreme Court to proceed with the case without any further delay.
The Constitutional Court had jurisdiction to examine the length of the proceedings in issue as from 15 February 1993. It admitted that the case had been complex to a certain extent, in particular because the offences in issue had been committed more than 30 years ago. The applicant by her conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. Their overall length was in itself incompatible with the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. As regards the conduct of the Regional Court in particular, it had remained inactive for at least 78 months without any justification. The Constitutional Court also recalled that in its finding of 12 November 2003 given in proceedings initiated by the accused persons it had ordered the Regional Court to deal with the case without delay. There had been unjustified delays also as regards the conduct of the Regional Court in the separate set of proceedings concerning one of the accused persons.
As regards the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that the first hearing had been scheduled after two years. Such a period was excessive in view of the overall length of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court held that the finding of a violation in respect of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, together with its order that the Supreme Court should avoid further delays in the proceedings, constituted in itself appropriate satisfaction as regards the appeal proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated.
2. Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained that the Slovakian authorities had been unable to establish the circumstances of her daughter’s death and to draw the appropriate conclusion in respect of those responsible. The length of the criminal proceedings had been incompatible with her right to respect for her private and family life.
3. The applicant alleged a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in that the authorities had failed to establish within a reasonable time the circumstances of her daughter’s violent death and to punish the persons responsible for it. With reference to an earlier judgment of the Constitutional Court the applicant maintained that she lacked standing to complain to the Constitutional Court about a violation of her late daughter’s rights in that respect.
4. The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that she had no remedies at her disposal permitting her to obtain appropriate satisfaction in respect of the above alleged violations of her rights.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings which she had joined as an injured party. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which in its relevant part provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The applicant maintained that she was still a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time as the Constitutional Court had made no just satisfaction award in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.
The Court has jurisdiction to examine the length of the criminal proceedings in issue as from 18 March 1992 when the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, to which Slovakia is one of the successor States, ratified the Convention and recognised the right of individual application. The proceedings ended on 4 December 2006. The period under consideration thus lasted 14 years, 8 months and 20 days.
The question whether the applicant can still claim to be a “victim”, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time falls to be determined in the light of the principles established under the Court’s case-law (Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-107, ECHR 2006‑... and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006 - ...).
The Constitutional Court had jurisdiction to examine the length of the proceedings as from 15 February 1993. After having analysed the relevant period in the light of the criteria which the Court also applies, it awarded the applicant the equivalent of 17,395 euros. That sum exceeds the award which the Court would make in respect of non-pecuniary damage, in accordance with its practice under Article 41 of the Convention, for the entire period which falls within its temporal jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the Court does not consider decisive the fact that the Constitutional Court did not order the Supreme Court to pay separately just satisfaction to the applicant.
The Constitutional Court ordered the Regional Court to pay the sum awarded to the applicant within two months. It also ordered the Supreme Court to proceed with the case without further delay. The Supreme Court complied with that order and decided on the appeals on 4 December 2006, which is less than three months after the Constitutional Court’s judgment had been given.
In view of the above facts, the Court considers that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the proceedings complained of.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicant complained that the Slovakian authorities had been unable to establish within a reasonable time the circumstances of her daughter’s death and to draw the appropriate conclusion in respect of those responsible. She relied on Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention which in their relevant parts read as follows:
Article 2
“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. (...).”
Article 8
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, (...).”
a) To the extent that the applicant may be understood as complaining about the lack of effectiveness of the proceedings, the Court notes that, subsequent to the introduction of the present application, those proceedings ended in the conviction of the accused persons and the imposition of prison sentences on them.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
b) To the extent that the above complaints are based on the protracted length of the criminal proceedings and its impact on the applicant, the Court finds no reason for distinguishing them from the complaint under Article 6 § 1. They do not require a separate examination in the circumstances of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Menson and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) 47916/99, 6 May 2003).
3. Finally, the applicant complained that she had no remedies at her disposal allowing her to obtain appropriate satisfaction in respect of the above alleged violations of her rights. She relied on Article 13 of the Convention which reads:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Court recalls that Article 13 applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
The Court has found above that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 as well as her complaints under Articles 2 and 8 relating to an alleged lack of effectiveness of the proceedings were manifestly ill-founded. It has also found that a separate examination of the complaints under Articles 2 and 8 relating to the excessive length of the proceedings was not required. For similar reasons, the applicant did not have an “arguable claim” and Article 13 is therefore inapplicable to the case.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
[1] SKK 650,000 was then the equivalent of 17,395 euros.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy