SECOND SECTION
Application no. 66365/09
Rimantas SAVICKAS against Lithuania
and 5 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicants are Lithuanian nationals.
A. The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants in cases nos. 66365/09, 12845/10, 29813/10, 30623/10, 28367/11 are or were judges in the Lithuanian courts. The applicant in case no. 29809/10 is the widow of a judge.
In 2000 first five applicants and the husband of the applicant in case no. 29809/10 started court proceedings for unpaid salary. Litigation ended in 2009-2010, their claims having been granted in part (for the chronology of litigation see the Appendix below).
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
Article 6.246 of the Civil Code, in force since 1 July 2001, provides that civil liability arises from non-performance of a statutory duty or from a violation of the general duty of care.
Article 6.272 of the Civil Code reads as follows:
Liability for damage caused by unlawful actions of preliminary investigation officials, prosecutors, judges and the court
“1. Damage resulting either from unlawful conviction, or unlawful arrest, as a measure of suppression, as well as from unlawful detention, or application of unlawful procedural measures of enforcement, or unlawful infliction of an administrative penalty - arrest - shall be compensated fully by the State irrespective of the fault of the officials of preliminary investigation, prosecution or court.
2. The State shall be liable to full compensation for the damage caused by unlawful actions of a judge or the court trying a civil case, where the damage is caused through the fault of the judge himself or that of any other court official.
3. In addition to pecuniary damage, the aggrieved person shall be entitled to non-pecuniary damage.”
The ruling of the Constitutional Court of 19 August 2006 stipulates:
“... by virtue of the Constitution, a person has the right to claim compensation for damage caused by the unlawful actions of State institutions and agents, even if such compensation is not foreseen by law; the courts adjudicating such cases ... have the power to award appropriate compensation by directly applying the principles of the Constitution ... as well as the general principles of law, while being guided inter alia by the principle of reasonableness, etc.”
COMMON QUESTIONS
1. Was the length of the court proceedings in the present cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. As regards the applicants’ claim about a breach of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time, did they have an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Giedrikas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 51392/07, 14 December 2010)?
If an effective domestic remedy did exist, have the applicants exhausted it?
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
The parties are requested to provide examples of recent domestic case-law as to the effectiveness of the domestic remedies in respect of the complaints about the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
APPENDIX
No
Case no.
Name of the applicant(s)
Length of proceedings
Levels of jurisdiction
Other complaints
1
66365/09
lodged on 12 December 2009
Rimantas Savickas
Beginning: 25 February 2000. The applicant lodged a lawsuit for unpaid judge’s salary with the Vilnius City First District Court.
End: 18 June 2009, final decision of the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant’s civil claim was granted in part.
Length: 9 years and 3 months overall
2
Art. 6 § 1 (fair hearing and impartiality of the domestic courts)
2
12845/10
lodged on 23 February 2010
Vylius Kryževičius
Beginning: 22 February 2000. The applicant lodged a lawsuit for unpaid judge’s salary with the Vilnius City First District Court.
End: 24 August 2009, final decision of the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant’s civil claim was granted in part.
Length: 9 years and 6 months
2
Art. 6 § 1 (fair hearing)
Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (the applicant questions the amount paid as a salary)
3
29809/10
lodged on 21 May 2010
Daiva Vaškelienė
Beginning: 10 July 2000. The applicant’s husband, then a judge, lodged a lawsuit for unpaid judge’s salary. He died on 31 August 2005; in May 2006 the applicant joined the court proceedings instead of her late husband.
End: 1 December 2009, final decision by the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant’s civil claim was granted in part.
Length: 9 years and 4 months overall
2
Art. 6 § 1 (fair hearing)
Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (the applicant questions the amount paid as a salary)
No
Case no.
Name of the applicant(s)
Length of proceedings
Levels of jurisdiction
Other complaints
4
29813/10
lodged on 18 May 2010
Vilmantas Almantas Gaidelis
Beginning: 5 July 2000. The applicant lodged a lawsuit for unpaid judge’s salary with the court of first instance.
End: 1 December 2009, final decision by the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant’s civil claim was granted in part.
Length: 9 years and 4 months overall
2
Art. 6 § 1 (fair hearing and impartiality of the domestic courts)
5
30623/10
lodged on 26 May 2010
Algimantas Pivoriūnas
Beginning: 10 July 2000. The applicant lodged a lawsuit for unpaid judge’s salary with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court.
End: 1 December 2009, final decision by the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant’s civil claim was granted in part.
Length: 9 years and 5 months overall
2
Art. 6 § 1 (fair hearing)
Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (the applicant questions the amount paid as a salary)
6
28367/11
lodged on 17 April 2011
Petras Rimantas Brazys
Beginning: 3 April 2000. The applicant lodged a lawsuit for unpaid judge’s salary with the Vilnius City First District Court.
End: 25 October 2010, final decision by Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant’s civil claim was granted in part.
Length: 10 years and 6 months overall
2
No other complaints
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy