FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21805/06
by Hedviga DVOŘÁKOVÁ and Others
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 May 2006,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the observations and declaration submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are three Slovakian nationals. The first applicant, Mrs Hedviga Dvořáková, was born in 1929 and lives in Liptovský Mikuláš. The second applicant, Mrs Eva Skřeková, was born in 1944 and lives in Bratislava. The third applicant, Mrs Petronela Kundráková, was born in 1920 and lives in Bratislava.
The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 21 December 2000 the applicants filed an action with the Bratislava I District Court. They claimed the right to continue living in apartments from which they had been removed and compensation for damage. On 19 July 2001 the applicants modified their action in that they claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
On 10 April 2002 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the third applicant on the ground that she had withdrawn her claims. On 3 June 2002 the third applicant appealed. She alleged that the relevant submission had been made without her consent. On 27 February 2004 the Regional Court in Bratislava upheld the first-instance decision to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the third applicant.
On 27 April 2004 the third applicant filed an action for compensation with the Bratislava I District Court. She proposed that the proceedings be joined with the proceedings concerning the above action of 21 December 2000 as they concerned the same subject-matter.
On 25 October 2004 the District Court joined the two sets of proceedings. That decision became final on 24 January 2005.
On 14 July 2005 the applicants complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings.
On 13 December 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the right of the first and second applicants to a hearing without unjustified delay.
The decision stated that the case was somewhat complex and that the conduct of the first and second applicant had a certain impact on the length of the proceedings. As regards the conduct of the District Court, the Constitutional Court noted that the action had been filed on 21 December 2000 and that the first hearing had been held on 14 March 2005. The District Court had not proceeded in an efficient manner. The Constitutional Court granted just satisfaction in the amount of 20,000 Slovakian korunas[1] to the first and the second applicants each. It ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delay and to reimburse the costs of the constitutional proceedings to the first and second applicants.
As regards the third applicant, the Constitutional Court noted that she had again become a party to the proceedings on 24 January 2005 when the decision of 25 October 2004 to join her fresh action with that of the other two applicants had become final. No unjustified delays in the proceedings before the District Court had occurred after that date.
Following the Constitutional Court’s decision the District Court held a hearing on 19 April 2006.
The applicants submitted further particulars and partly modified their claims on 16 May 2006 and 6 December 2007.
In October 2006 and April 2007 the District Court asked the Bratislava Regional Court for the case file in criminal proceedings related to the subject-matter of the applicants’ action.
The proceedings are pending before the Bratislava I District Court.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings. They 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 ...”
1. As regards the first and second applicants
By letter dated 11 September 2008 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this complaint in respect of the first and second applicants. They further requested the Court to strike out this part of the application in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government acknowledge both the status of Mrs Hedviga Dvořáková and Mrs Eva Skřeková, the first and the second applicant in the case no. 21805/06 Dvořáková and Others v. the Slovak Republic, as victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which they were involved.
I, Marica Pirošíková, the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government offer to pay ex gratia to Mrs Hedviga Dvořáková and Mrs Eva Skřeková the sum of EUR 3,400 (three thousand four hundred euros) each. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred by the applicants with respect to the violation of their right under the Convention.
The Government would suggest that the above information might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
In the event of the Court’s decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Government undertake to pay to Mrs Hedviga Dvořáková and Mrs Eva Skřeková the declared sum within three months from the date of notification of the decision. This sum will be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable on the date of settlement in case or payment prior to 1 January 2009, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
The applicants in their reply of 15 October 2008 rejected the Government’s initiative as being unacceptable. They asked the Court to proceed with the examination of their complaint.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application or part thereof out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
The Court also recalls that under certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005; Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006 and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005 IX).
The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ....). Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against the Slovak Republic (see, for example, Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006; Rišková v. Slovakia, no. 58174/00, §§ 88-97, 22 August 2006 or Sika v. Slovakia, no. 2132/02, §§ 28-35, 13 June 2006).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed (which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the relevant part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar as cited above; Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, judgment of 26 March 2002 and also Felbert v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 14081/03, 19 June 2007 and Zemanová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32494/05, 11 September 2007).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application in respect of the first and the second applicant (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, this part of the applications should be struck out of the list.
2. As regards the third applicant
The Government, with reference to the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 13 December 2005, argued that the length of the period covered by that judgment was not excessively long. As to the subsequent period, the third applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as she had not sought redress by means of a fresh complaint to the Constitutional Court.
The third applicant explained that her representative had withdrawn the original action without her consent. In any event, the length of the proceedings after she had lodged her new action in April 2004 was excessive.
The Court notes that the proceedings concerning the original claim of the third applicant were discontinued by judicial decisions given in 2002 and 2004 for reasons which are outside its purview in the present case.
On 27 April 2004 the third applicant filed an action for compensation with the Bratislava I District Court which concerned the same subject-matter as the claims of the other two applicants. On 25 October 2004 the District Court joined the two sets of proceedings.
In the context of the complaint lodged on 14 July 2005 the Constitutional Court was entitled to examine only the period after the decision to join the two sets of proceedings had become final on 24 January 2005. In its judgment of 13 December 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the relevant period in respect of the third applicant was not excessively long. The Court finds no reason for disagreeing with that conclusion.
In these circumstances, in respect of the alleged delays in the proceedings during the period subsequent to the Constitutional Court’s judgment the third applicant should have lodged a new complaint with the Constitutional Court (see Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007). The Court notes that such a possibility is still open to the third applicant since the domestic proceedings complained of are pending.
It follows that the complaint of the third applicant must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention partly as being manifestly ill-founded and partly for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it concerns the complaint lodged by the first and second applicants, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] SKK 20,000 was then the equivalent of EUR 525.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy