FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 60702/11 and 59633/12
DOMIRA, SPOL. S R.O. against the Czech Republic
and Alena MELUZÍNOVÁ against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 March 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Ledi Bianku, President,
Aleš Pejchal,
Jovan Ilievski, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 21 September 2011 and 12 September 2012 respectively,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant in case no. 60702/11, Domira, spol.s r.o. (“the applicant company”), is a Czech limited liability company with its seat in Koněšín. It was represented before the Court by Mr V. Hochmann, a lawyer practicing in Zlín.
2. The applicant in case no. 59633/12, Ms Alena Meluzínová, is a Czech national who was born in 1934 and lives in Křtiny. She was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Pokorný, a lawyer practising in Brno.
3. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice.
A. The circumstances of the case
4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Application no. 60702/11
(a) Civil proceedings
5. On 22 February 1994 an action was brought against the applicant company by which the plaintiff sought payment of 35,708 Czech korunas (CZK – approximately 1,320 euros (EUR)) together with interest, arising from a commercial relationship with the applicant company.
6. On 28 September 1994 the Zlín District Court (okresní soud) issued a payment order against which the applicant company lodged a protest (odpor).
7. On 31 March 1995 the court granted the action and ordered the applicant company to pay the amount sought.
8. On 26 November 1997, following an appeal by the applicant company, the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.
9. On 18 August 1998 the latter granted the claim and again ordered the applicant company to pay the disputed amount.
10. On 24 July 2002, following the applicant company’s appeal, the Regional Court upheld the judgment with regard to the applicant company’s obligation to pay the principal amount owed but quashed it with regard to the interest due.
11. The applicant company subsequently challenged the judgment with an appeal on points of law and with a constitutional appeal.
12. On 18 June 2003, the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) rejected the appeal on points of law as inadmissible. On 6 October 2003 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the appeal as manifestly ill-founded.
13. On 30 October 2003 the District Court adopted a judgment obliging the applicant company to pay interest to the plaintiff.
14. On 10 April 2007, following the applicant company’s appeal, the Regional Court upheld the judgment with regard to the applicant company’s obligation to pay interest.
15. The applicant company challenged the judgment with an appeal on points of law and with a constitutional appeal.
16. On 26 July 2007, the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal as manifestly ill-founded.
17. On 18 February 2009, the Supreme Court quashed the judgments of both the Regional Court and the District Court and remitted the case to the District Court.
18. On 12 May 2009, following withdrawal of the action, the District Court discontinued the proceedings.
19. On 30 September 2009, following an appeal by the applicant company against the decision on legal costs, the Regional Court modified the judgment in that respect. This decision became final on 27 November 2009.
(b) Proceedings for damages
20. On 7 November 2003 the applicant company lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights. By a letter of 29 January 2008 the Court informed the applicant company of the inadmissibility of the application on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies since the applicant company’s proceedings for damages were still pending at that time.
21. On 3 October 2006 the applicant company claimed compensation from the Ministry of Justice under Act no. 82/1998, for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the civil proceedings, evaluating the damage at EUR 18,750.
22. In a letter of 30 July 2007 the Ministry acknowledged that delays had occurred and that the proceedings had been unreasonably lengthy and awarded the applicant company CZK 74,000 (EUR 2,640).
23. On 24 August 2007 the applicant company brought a civil action for damages against the Ministry, seeking CZK 451,000 (EUR 16,285) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
24. On 11 November 2008 the Prague 2 District Court (obvodní soud) dismissed the action because it found the amount of compensation awarded by the Ministry appropriate.
25. The applicant company lodged an appeal regarding the amount of CZK 151,000 (EUR 5,450) of the total. On 21 April 2009 the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) upheld the judgment of the District Court.
26. The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law. Though the appeal was admissible, on 21 October 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed it as unfounded and upheld the conclusions of the Municipal Court on the merits. Having had regard to the criteria for determining the amount of damages, the Supreme Court observed that in the present case the sum should be reduced due to the complexity of the case, increased due to the conduct of the courts, and reduced with regard to what was at stake for the applicant company, with the last reduction possibly amounting to more than 50%.
27. The applicant company lodged a constitutional appeal against the Supreme Court judgment. It was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded by the Constitutional Court on 20 April 2011.
2. Application no. 59633/12
(a) Enforcement proceedings
28. On 30 May 1997 the applicant initiated proceedings to enforce her right to payment of CZK 149,994 (EUR 5,500) from a debtor.
29. On 12 June 1997 the Náchod District Court ordered the enforcement as requested.
30. On 1 July 2002 the applicant received a notice from the court that an auction of the debtor’s property had been scheduled for 8 October 2002.
31. On 4 October 2002 the applicant informed the court that, following a voluntary partial repayment of the debt, she no longer insisted on the ordered auction. Subsequently, the court discontinued the enforcement concerning the repaid amount.
32. For 18 April 2003 another auction was ordered but the applicant again informed the court that she no longer insisted on it, following a voluntary partial repayment of the debt.
33. A third auction was ordered for 17 December 2003 but on 12 December 2003 the debtor repaid the rest of the principal amount.
34. On 5 May 2005 the court decided to discontinue the enforcement proceedings but following an appeal by the applicant this decision was quashed.
35. On 22 August 2005 the applicant proposed the discontinuation of the proceedings, following a settlement agreement made with the debtor, by which the debtor paid her CZK 160,000 (EUR 5,430).
36. On 6 September 2005 the court discontinued the enforcement proceedings. The decision became final on 27 September 2005.
(b) Proceedings for damages
37. On 18 November 2005 the applicant lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights. In March 2007 she received a letter from the Court, indicating that a new remedy under Act no. 82/1998 as amended by Act no. 160/2006 was available to her. On 22 April 2008 the application (no. 41990/05) was declared inadmissible on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
38. On 2 April 2007 the applicant claimed compensation under Act no. 82/1998 from the Ministry of Justice for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings, evaluating the overall damage at CZK 950,000 (EUR 34,000).
39. As the Ministry did not deal with the applicant’s request within the six-month statutory time-limit, she brought a civil action on 15 October 2007.
40. In a letter of 25 June 2008 the Ministry of Justice acknowledged that the enforcement proceedings had suffered from delays and awarded the applicant CZK 33,000 (EUR 1,370) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
41. After several decisions on territorial jurisdiction in the case and a necessary amendment of the applicant’s action, which had lacked a description of the relevant facts, the Prague 2 District Court dismissed the action by a judgment of 27 August 2009. Following an appeal by the applicant on 10 June 2010, the Prague Municipal Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the District Court since it found the judgment non-reviewable both for lack of grounds and for lack of intelligibility.
42. On 9 December 2010 the District Court dismissed the action anew, finding that the applicant’s claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage was time-barred. On 20 June 2011 the Municipal Court, following an appeal by the applicant, quashed the judgment again and remitted the case to the District Court which subsequently, on 16 November 2011, adopted a third judgment by which it awarded the applicant CZK 77,000 (EUR 3,000) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and dismissed the remainder of the action.
43. On 4 June 2012 the Municipal Court, on appeals by both parties, modified the judgment and awarded the applicant CZK 44,000 (EUR 1,710) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, CZK 15,465 (EUR 600) in reimbursement for the costs and expenses in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights, and interest on the whole amount owed to her by the Ministry. The Municipal Court concluded that the enforcement proceedings had been unreasonably lengthy as they had lasted overall for eight years and four months. It then determined the sum to be awarded to the applicant (CZK 20,000 per year), considering the overall length of the enforcement proceedings and the unreasonable length of the compensation proceedings, and adjusted it by percentage rates representing the complexity of the case (-20%), the conduct of the applicant, which had led to postponement of two ordered auctions (-20%), the conduct of the courts (+20%), and what was at stake for the applicant (-30%).
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
44. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out in the Court’s decision in the case of Vokurka v. the Czech Republic (dec.) (no. 40552/02, §§ 11-24, 16 October 2007).
COMPLAINTS
45. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the main proceedings, that is to say the enforcement proceedings and the civil proceedings respectively, as well as the length of the compensation proceedings, had been unreasonable.
46. Furthermore, under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants complained that they had had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of the delays in judicial proceedings and that they had not been provided with sufficient redress. The applicant company, under Article 13 of the Convention taken alone, also complained of the absence of an effective preventive remedy against delays in judicial proceedings.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of applications
47. The Court considers that, given their common legal background, the applications should be joined in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.
B. Length of the proceedings
48. The applicants first complained about the length of the main proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of 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 ...”
49. The Government rejected the applicants’ allegation and disputed their claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. They argued that the domestic authorities had both found a violation of their right to have their case heard within a reasonable time and had afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for the breach of the Convention.
50. The applicants disagreed and asserted that the awarded redress could not be considered appropriate and sufficient.
51. The Court reiterates its settled case-law that an applicant’s status as a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention depends on whether the domestic authorities acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the alleged infringement of the Convention and, if necessary, provided appropriate and sufficient redress in relation thereto. Only where those two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application by the Court (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 71-72, ECHR 2006-V; Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, ECHR 2004-VI; and Vidaković v. Serbia (dec.), no. 16231/07, § 26, 24 May 2011).
52. The Court, in this regard, notes that the Ministry of Justice, as well as the domestic courts, acknowledged that there had been a violation of both applicants’ right to have their case heard within a reasonable time. Therefore, the first condition laid down in the Court’s case-law has been satisfied.
53. The applicants’ victim status further depends on whether the redress afforded was adequate and sufficient, having regard to the just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention (see Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004). In length-of-proceedings cases, one of the characteristics of sufficient redress relates to the amount awarded (see Cocchiarella, cited above, § 91, and Dědič v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 31380/08, 17 May 2011) and whether that amount may be regarded as sufficient falls to be assessed in the light of all circumstance of the case (see Lazić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 55507/07, 22 April 2010). Furthermore, the level of compensation depends also on the characteristics and effectiveness of the domestic remedy, including the length of the compensation proceedings and possible delays in payment of the compensation awarded. Indeed, the very nature of the compensatory remedy requires a speedy decision (see Domingues Loureiro and Others v. Portugal, no. 57290/08, § 41, 12 April 2011).
54. Turning to the present cases, in relation to the second applicant, the Court notes that the sum awarded to her by the domestic authorities in respect of non-pecuniary damage (EUR 3,080) is lower compared with the sums awarded for comparable delays in the Court’s case-law; however, it can still be considered sufficient and therefore appropriate for the violation suffered. In this regard, the Court repeats that the adequacy of the compensation awarded is to be assessed in the light of all the circumstances of the case. These include not merely the duration of the proceedings in the specific case but the value of the award judged in the light of the standard of living in the State concerned, and the fact that under the national system compensation will, in general, be awarded and paid more promptly that would be the case if the matter fell to be decided by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention (see Vidakovic, cited above, § 31).
55. The Court further notes that in considering the adequacy of the compensation awarded to the second applicant, it has not overlooked the fact that the compensation proceedings, having lasted five years at two levels of jurisdiction, were not speedy at all. Nevertheless, the Court has particular regard to the fact that the Municipal Court took into account the unreasonable length of the compensation proceedings in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the second applicant for the unreasonable length of the main proceedings (see paragraph 43 above), and thus eventually awarded her a higher amount of compensation on these grounds (compare Cocchiarella, cited above, § 98, or contrast Sartory v. France, no. 40589/07, § 26, 24 September 2009). In the present case, the Court considers the increase made to the compensation as adequate and sufficient.
56. As regards the applicant company, the Court finds the compensation awarded also sufficient and appropriate. It cannot in particular overlook the importance of what was at stake in the main proceedings for the applicant company. The proceedings concerned a commercial dispute over a rather low financial amount (EUR 1,320 if converted at present) and the applicant company was a defendant, not a plaintiff, in the proceedings. Besides, the merits of the dispute had been already decided in 2003, four years before the applicant company initiated compensation proceedings before the District Court and three years before it lodged a compensation request with the Ministry of Justice, and the subsequent proceedings concerned only the interest to be paid.
57. Indeed, there is not a general exclusion on compensation being awarded for non-pecuniary damage alleged by legal entities; however, whether an award should be made will depend on the circumstances of each case. In considering the non-pecuniary damage suffered, account should be taken of the company’s reputation, uncertainty in decision-planning, disruption in the management of the company (for which there is no precise method of calculating the consequences) and lastly, albeit to a lesser degree, the anxiety and inconvenience caused to the members of the management team (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, §§ 32 and 35, ECHR 2000 IV). In the present case, there is nothing in the case file to indicate that the applicant company suffered any particular damage within the meaning of the aforesaid aspects as a result of the unreasonable length of the main proceedings at issue. Lastly, as concerns the length of the compensation proceedings, the Court observes that these proceedings lasted three years and eight months at four levels of jurisdiction (four years and six months if dealings at the ministerial level are included) which cannot be considered excessive. Furthermore, the applicant company itself did not expressly claim before the domestic authorities a particular increase in compensation on the grounds of the length of the compensation proceedings. In conclusion, having regard to all the aforementioned circumstances, the Court does not find the compensation awarded to the applicant company inadequate.
58. Accordingly, in the present cases, the Court concludes that the applicants can no longer claim to be “victims” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention of the alleged violation of the right to have their case heard within a reasonable time with regard to the main proceedings at issue. It follows that the applications in this part must be rejected as inadmissible, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
C. Other complaints
59. The applicants further alleged that the compensatory proceedings themselves had been unreasonably long and had not provided them with appropriate redress. They relied on Article 6 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant company also complained of the absence of an effective preventive remedy against delays in judicial proceedings.
60. The Court considers that the applicants, in substance, complain that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of the length of the main proceedings and therefore their complaint falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention (see Bakiyevets v. Russia, no. 22892/03, § 50, 15 June 2006, and Golha v. the Czech Republic, no. 7051/06, § 64 and 72, 26 May 2011).
61. The Court has already found above that the applicants lost their victim status because the competent authorities acknowledged a violation of their right to have their case heard within a reasonable time and awarded them appropriate and sufficient redress (see paragraphs 53 to 57 above). Thus, the applicants had had at their disposal an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 (see Mets v. Estonia (dec.), no. 38967/10, § 36, 7 May 2013, and Jussi Uoti v. Finland (dec.), no. 43180/04, 9 December 2008).
62. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
63. Nevertheless, the Court notes that even if the complaint about the excessive length of the compensation proceedings and inadequacy of the redress afforded had been examined under Article 6 and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 respectively, the Court’s conclusion on its inadmissibility would have remained the same. As regards Article 6 of the Convention, the Court refers to its aforesaid observations that the second applicant was awarded higher compensation on the grounds of the length of the compensation proceedings (see paragraph 56 above) and in the case of the applicant company, the length of the compensation proceedings cannot be considered excessive (see paragraph 57 above). In addition, when considering Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 the Court notes that this Article was not at stake in the present cases since the applicants could not be considered to have had at least a “legitimate expectation” of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right as they had not had a legal claim to obtain a particular amount of compensation.
64. Lastly, the Court draws attention to the “effective remedy” requirement under Article 13 with respect to a violation of a right to have a case heard within a reasonable time. According to the Court’s settled case-law, Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 and such a remedy must be “effective” in practice as well as in law (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 156 and 157, ECHR 2000-XI). Remedies available to a litigant at domestic level for raising a complaint about the length of proceedings are “effective” within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention if they prevent the alleged violation or its continuation, or provide adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred. Article 13, therefore, offers an alternative: a remedy is effective if it can be used either to expedite a decision by the courts dealing with the case, or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays that have already occurred (see Kudła, cited above, §§ 158-59, and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII).
65. The Court has already declared particular support for the preventive solution. Some States have understood the situation perfectly by choosing to combine two types of remedy, one designed to expedite the proceedings and the other to afford compensation (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 100, ECHR 2006 VII). Turning to the Czech legal system, the Court has also already acknowledged the positive developments made since the Court’s Vokurka decision (cited above) concerning the legislation on an acceleratory remedy, namely the request to set a time-limit for a procedural step as provided by Article 174a of Act no. 6/2002 as in force since 1 July 2009 (see Drenk v. the Czech Republic, no. 1071/12, § 70, 4 September 2014). Nevertheless, this remedy was not available to the applicants in the course of the main proceedings at issue.
66. In relation to the compensatory remedy under Act no. 82/1998, which was the only remedy available to the applicants at the relevant time, the Court reiterates, once again, the necessity of a speedy decision on compensation. The Court has expressed concerns about the risks of the lengthening of the compensatory proceedings in the Czech Republic which may be held at several levels of jurisdiction (see Vokurka, cited above). However, in the specific circumstances of the present cases, the Court does not consider that this compensatory remedy does not satisfy the requirements of Article 13. Nevertheless, it has to be noted, particularly considering the circumstances of the second applicant, that such a conclusion was conditioned by the fact that the applicant had been provided with higher compensation on the grounds of the long compensation proceedings (compare Golha, cited above, §§ 71 and 73). The Court, therefore, observes that should the length of the compensatory proceedings under Act no. 82/1998 prove to be a common deficiency and should the litigants lack easy access to a higher compensation on these grounds, irrespective of the stage of the proceedings where the delays occur, the conclusion of the Court regarding the effectiveness of this remedy within the meaning of Article 13 could be different.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 30 March 2017.
Renata DegenerLedi Bianku
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy