FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15074/05
by Martin HAJDÚCH
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 April 2005,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 2 June 2008 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant's reply thereto,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Martin Hajdúch, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Zvolen. 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.
1. Proceedings concerning the action of 22 September 1993
On 22 September 1993 the applicant and several other persons filed an action with the District Court in Zvolen. They sued a co-operative for a sum of money.
On 1 July 1998 the case was transferred to the District Court in Žiar nad Hronom.
On 2 November 2004 the District Court in Žiar nad Hronom dismissed the action. The applicant appealed. On 7 April 2005 the court of appeal upheld the relevant part of the first-instance judgment. The decision became final on 19 May 2005.
Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully requested that the proceedings be re-opened.
2. Constitutional proceedings
On 2 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court in Žiar nad Hronom had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay.
The Constitutional Court noted that the applicant exclusively complained about the proceedings before the District Court in Žiar nad Hronom. It nevertheless had regard to the overall length of the proceedings (more than ten years at that time) and concluded that it was excessively long.
As the applicant by his conduct had substantially contributed to the length of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court held that the finding of a violation together with the order that the District Court should avoid any further delay in the proceedings constituted appropriate just satisfaction in the circumstances of the case. It ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 Convention about unfairness and length of the proceedings concerning his action.
2. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complained that he had no effective remedy at his disposal against the court of appeal's judgment of 7 April 2005.
THE LAW
A. Length of proceedings
The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had breached Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 2 June 2008 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the length of proceedings complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out this part of the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government acknowledge both the applicant's status of the victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was 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 the applicant Mr Martin Hajdúch the sum of EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros). This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred by the applicant with respect to the violation of his rights 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 the applicant 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 payment, 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. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
The applicant argued that the sum proposed by the Government did not cover the entire damage which he had suffered.
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 (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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar as cited above; and also Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, judgment of 26 March 2002). Moreover, in the 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
B. Remaining complaints
The applicant further complained (i) under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair hearing had been infringed in the proceedings related to his action and (ii) under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy at his disposal against the court of appeal's judgment of 7 April 2005.
However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
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.
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 length of the proceedings complaint, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy