FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18900/20
Dušan KOVÁČIK
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 April 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Alena Poláčková,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 April 2020,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, a Slovak national, was born in 1945 and lives in Bratislava. He was represented by Ms J.V. Žvachová, a lawyer practising in Bratislava.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings was communicated to the Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
The applicant lodged an action related to his co-ownership rights with the Bratislava I District Court (“the District Court”). By the decision of 3 July 2020 his action was dismissed. The proceedings are now pending on appeal.
During the proceedings before the District Court, the Constitutional Court adopted two judgments in which it found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing “within a reasonable time”. He was awarded 3,000 EUR in just satisfaction each time (judgments nos. I. ÚS 203/2013 and I. ÚS 242/2019, adopted on 3 July 2013 and 10 September 2019, respectively). Furthermore, the Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to proceed without delay.
Following the earlier judgment of the Constitutional Court, the applicant lodged application no. 19017/14 with the Court, complaining under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the same set of the proceedings under consideration in the present case. On 17 April 2014 the Court declared the application inadmissible by the decision of a single judge.
THE LAW
Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings)The period prior to the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 3 July 2013
The Court recalls its decision of 17 April 2014 in which it declared the applicant’s previous application (no. 19017/14) about the length of the impugned proceedings inadmissible.
It follows that this part of the application is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court (see Harkins v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, §§ 41-42, 15 June 2017) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 2 (b) and 4 of the Convention.The period between the two Constitutional Court’s judgments
The Government considered that the applicant had lost his victim status as a result of the express acknowledgement of the violation and the redress, both in the acceleratory and compensatory form, offered by the Constitutional Court.
The Court reiterates that where the national authorities have found a violation and their decision constitutes appropriate and sufficient redress, the party concerned can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 181, ECHR 2006‑V, with further references).
In the present case, the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 10 September 2019 expressly acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing “within a reasonable time” and awarded him another 3,000 EUR in just satisfaction for the length of the proceedings amounting to approximately six years before a single court.
Having taken into account all the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the domestic award granted by the Constitutional Court constituted appropriate and sufficient redress and that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.The period following the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 10 September 2019
The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion arguing that the applicant had failed to lodge a fresh constitutional complaint after the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 10 September 2019.
The applicant maintained that his right to a hearing “within a reasonable time” continued to be violated since even after the two Constitutional Court’s judgments the District Court failed to act without delays.
The Court reiterates that in Slovakia the remedy that is normally considered to be effective in respect of the excessive length of proceedings and that accordingly has to be used for the purpose of the exhaustion rule is the complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (see Ištván and Ištvánová v. Slovakia, no. 30189/07, § 78, 12 June 2012).
The Court notes that following the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 10 September 2019, the applicant did not lodge a fresh constitutional complaint. While in the present case there may be some doubts as to the effectiveness of that remedy in the light of its alleged acceleratory function, the Court does not need to address the objection of non-exhaustion because the remaining part of the application is in any event inadmissible.
The period under examination started on 10 September 2019 and lasted approximately ten months until 3 July 2020, when the District Court issued the decision on the merits. Following the applicant’s appeal, the proceedings continue to be pending before the appellate court. The Court concludes that the relevant period does not constitute an issue in the light of the Court’s jurisprudence.
In view of the above, the Court finds 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,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 20 May 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Viktoriya MaradudinaPéter Paczolay
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy