Communicated on 23 March 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 8394/13
Anna KĽAČANOVÁ
against Slovakia
lodged on 26 January 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Anna Kľačanová, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Martin.
The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. In 2006 the applicant was recognised as “severely disabled” with 60% “functional impairment” pursuant to the relevant national laws. Her monthly disabled person’s allowance payments in 2010, 2011 and 2012 were 325.40 euros (EUR), EUR 336.20 and EUR 346.30, respectively.
4. Prior to this, in 2004, the applicant had lodged a claim with the Martin District Land Office (Obvodný pozemkový úrad) for restitution of a set of real property consisting of several plots which came under special legislation provisions on restitution.
5. On 20 December 2011 she lodged an action against the Land Office with the Žilina Regional Court, sitting as an administrative tribunal, seeking an order for acceleration of the restitution proceedings.
6. This type of action required mandatory legal representation. Accordingly, the action was submitted through a lawyer and the applicant also sought an order for costs. The latter claim was calculated under the applicable national rules as pertaining to two “acts of legal assistance” (úkon právnej služby), in particular a first consultation with a lawyer, and the formulation of the action. EUR 130 was claimed in respect of one such act along with an associated lump sum for overhead expenses; the whole claim came to some EUR 260.
7. On 2 January, 29 February and 23 March 2012 the applicant made further submissions. In the former two, she proactively informed the court that the Land Office had taken decisions in respect of her restitution claim on 23 December 2011 and 12 January 2012 and contended that these decisions did not determine her claim in relation to all the plots concerned and that they had been taken with the aim of creating a false impression that there had been no unjustified delays in the proceedings. The latter submission was made in response to a request by the court to specify the plots in respect of which the applicant’s restitution claim was still outstanding.
8. In the submission of 23 March 2012 the applicant reiterated her claim in respect of legal costs, amending its scope as pertaining to five acts of legal assistance, including the three submissions mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
9. On 10 April 2012 the Regional Court granted the action and made an order for costs. As to the latter ruling, it summarised the applicant’s claim as pertaining to three acts of legal assistance (the first consultation with a lawyer, the formulation of the action, and the formulation of the submission of 2 January 2012). It found that the applicant had correctly calculated the value of the act of legal assistance and that the undertaking by her lawyer of those acts had been justified. Accordingly, it allowed the claim in respect of those three acts of legal assistance.
There is no reference in the Regional Court’s decision to the remaining two acts of legal assistance in the summary of the applicant’s claim, in the courts’ reasoning, or in the operative part of its decision.
The Regional Court’s decision was not amenable to appeal.
10. On 18 May 2012 the applicant challenged the ruling on costs before the Constitutional Court. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, she complained that the Regional Court had failed to provide any reasons for not allowing her claim for costs with respect to the remaining two acts of legal assistance. As she had been fully successful in the case, she normally should have been compensated in respect of the costs of all justified acts of legal assistance received. A reduction of the award could only have been based on exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 150 of the Code of Civil Proceedings. However, in determining the issue of legal costs, the Regional Court had made no use of that provision and, in any event, no such circumstances pertained, in particular because the case concerned unjustified delays in proceedings before a public authority lasting more than seven years; her efforts to ensure an out-of-court solution had been futile and had left her with no alternative to asserting her rights in the Regional Court; legal representation before that court was mandatory, the applicant was disabled, and she was living on the allowance specified above. The applicant further submitted that the purpose of the underlying restitution proceedings was to remedy past wrongs and not to do further wrongs just because a claimant asserted his or her legal rights.
11. On 14 June 2012 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It noted that it was essentially aimed at the fact that the Regional Court had provided no explanation for deciding on and granting compensation in respect of three acts of legal assistance only. It observed that, as such, the compliant concerned a decision on costs rather than on the merits of the applicant’s action. It referred to its established case-law to the effect that decisions on costs could violate fundamental rights and freedoms only exceptionally, in particular if there was an extremely serious interference with such rights and freedoms. It was true that the decision contested in the applicants’ case was “challengeable under the criteria of lawfulness”. However, it was necessary to take into account that the value of the remaining two acts of legal assistance was only some EUR 270. This was less than three times the statutory minimum wage, the limit that was otherwise applicable to admissibility of appeals on points of law. If the amount at stake was this negligible, the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court could only be engaged in very exceptional circumstances and no such circumstances had been established in the applicant’s case. Accordingly, her complaint was rejected as manifestly ill-founded.
The decision was served on 3 August 2012 and no appeal lay against it.
COMPLAINTS
12. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Regional Court failed to provide any reasons at all for not allowing her claim for costs in respect of the remaining two acts of legal assistance, the importance of which was to be assessed in view of her personal circumstances and the characteristics of the underlying proceedings.
13. The applicant also complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, that she had no effective remedy in relation to her complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because no appeal was available against the Regional Court’s decision and the Constitutional Court arbitrarily rejected her complaint.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In view of the amount at stake, the applicant’s personal circumstances, and the characteristics of the proceedings in question, can it be said that she has suffered no significant disadvantage, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention?
If so, does respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto require an examination of the application on the merits and has the case been duly considered by a domestic tribunal, within the meaning of that provision?
2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, in relation to her claim in respect of the remaining two acts of legal assistance, was her right of access to court respected and was the ruling (if any) supported by adequate reasoning?
3. In view of the rejection of her constitutional complaint and the lack of any appeal before the ordinary courts, did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her other Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy