FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 33658/05
by Vladimír KUCHTA and Jolana KUCHTOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 31 August 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ján Šikuta, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 September 2005,
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
A. The circumstances of the case
The application was lodged by two Slovak nationals, spouses, Mr Vladimír Kuchta (“the first applicant”) and Mrs Jolana Kuchtová (“the second applicant”). They were born in 1931 and 1938 respectively. They were represented before the Court by Mrs I. Rajtáková, a lawyer practising in Košice. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
On 24 March 2010 the applicants' lawyer informed the Court that the first applicant had died on 26 January 2008 and that the applicants' daughter, Ms Jacqueline Bánesová, wished to pursue the application introduced by her father, the first applicant.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 31 May 1996 the applicants sued their neighbours and the municipality of Sečovce before the Trebišov District Court. They alleged that their property rights had been violated in that the neighbours' sump had polluted their well and claimed compensation for damage suffered.
On 24 January 2002 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. They complained about the length of the above proceedings. They also stated that “undue delays in these proceedings have been impeding our personal life for more than six years” and “because of the municipality we are deprived of the fundamental protection of our property”. In their submission they referred to Constitution Articles 44 (right to protection of the environment) and 48 (right to a hearing without unjustified delay).
The Constitutional Court asked the applicants to rectify shortcomings in their submission. On 26 February 2002 the applicants, already represented by a lawyer, specified that in their complaint they alleged a violation of Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution, that is a right to a hearing without unjustified delay.
On 10 July 2002 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants' right to a hearing without unjustified delay. It awarded each of the applicants the equivalent of 450 euros (at that time), as claimed by the applicants. It also ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delay and to reimburse the applicants' costs.
The District Court and, on appeal, the Košice Regional Court dealt with the case in the subsequent period.
Following the death of the first applicant, on 10 September 2008 the second applicant donated her part of the property in issue to their daughter, Ms Bánesová. The latter entered the domestic proceedings as the applicants' legal successor and withdrew the claim. As a result, the District Court discontinued the proceedings. The decision became final on 8 January 2009.Relevant domestic law and practice
Constitutional Court Act 1993 and the Constitutional Court's practice
Section 50 states that a request for proceedings to be started before the Constitutional Court must specify, among others, fundamental rights and freedoms allegedly violated.
Pursuant to paragraph 3 of section 20 (in force as from 20 March 2002) the Constitutional Court is bound by a request from a plaintiff for proceedings to be started unless the Act expressly provides otherwise.
The Constitutional Court examined several complaints under Article 127 of the Constitution, lodged in January and February 2002. In its decisions it noted, inter alia, that it was bound by requests for proceedings to be started, as submitted by plaintiffs. See, for example, the Constitutional Court's decisions I. ÚS 7/02, II. ÚS 65/02, II. ÚS 62/02 and II. ÚS 106/02 adopted in April, May and June 2002.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
2. The applicants further complained that the Slovak authorities had failed to protect their private life (Article 8 of the Convention) and their right to peacefully enjoy their property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) in that they had not taken appropriate measures with a view to preventing their neighbours from polluting the applicants' well.
THE LAW
A. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings and relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The proceedings began on 31 May 1996 and ended on 8 January 2009. They thus lasted twelve years and seven months at two levels of jurisdiction.
The Government argued that, in view of the Constitutional Court's judgment, the applicants could no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time. As regards the period after the Constitutional Court's judgment, the Government argued that the applicants should have lodged a fresh constitutional complaint.
The applicants argued that they were not required to repeatedly seek redress before the Constitutional Court.
The Court observes that on 10 July 2002 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the constitutional equivalent of the applicants' right to a hearing within reasonable time, ordered the District Court to proceed without further delay and awarded the just satisfaction in the full amount claimed by the applicants (the equivalent of 450 euros to each of the applicants). At that time the proceedings lasted six years at one level of jurisdiction. In respect of the period examined by the Constitutional Court, having regard to its established case-law on the subject and to the fact that the amount of just satisfaction corresponded to the sum claimed by the applicants before the Constitutional Court, 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 their right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 65-107, ECHR 2006-V or Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006-V and also Beňačková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 57987/00, 4 November 2003).
The Court further finds that the applicants were required, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, to again resort to the complaint procedure under Article 127 of the Constitution in respect of the proceedings subsequent to the Constitutional Court's judgment (see Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007).
It follows that this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention as being manifestly ill-founded and for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
B. Remaining complaints
The applicants further alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They complained that the authorities had failed to protect their private life and their right to peacefully enjoy their property.
The Government argued that the applicants had not specifically raised these complaints in their constitutional complaint (as regards the non‑pecuniary damage suffered) and they had not lodged a complaint under the State Liability Act (as regards the pecuniary damage suffered).
In the applicants' opinion the complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution was not an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They, therefore, argued that they were not required to use that remedy. Additionally they stated that section 20 (3) had been inserted in the Constitutional Court Act only on 20 March 2002, thus at the time of the lodging of their complaint the Constitutional Court had not been bound by their submission and could have examined it also from the viewpoint of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court has already found that the complaint procedure under Article 127 of the Constitution is an effective remedy in cases similar to the present one (see also Omasta v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 40221/98, 10 December 2002 and Lubina v. Slovakia, no. 77688/01, §§ 62-63, 19 September 2006). As regards the present case it observes that, pursuant to the Constitutional Court Act, at the relevant time the applicants were required to clearly specify the rights and freedoms allegedly violated. It also notes that in their original submission the applicants referred to their right to environment and to a hearing without unjustified delay. However, after the Constitutional Court had invited them to rectify shortcomings in their submission, the applicants, already represented by a lawyer, specified that their complaint concerned Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution, that is a right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The Court considers that the applicants, in this manner, unequivocally set out the scope of their constitutional complaint.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıLech Garlicki
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy