FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 62216/00
by Mária ŠIRANCOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 September 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki, judges,
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 June 2000,
Having regard to the decision of 1 April 2003 to adjourn the examination of the application,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Mária Širancová, is a Slovakian national, who was born in 1933 and lives in Čadca. She was represented before the Court by Mrs E. Ľalíková, a lawyer practising in Bratislava.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s restitution claim
On 12 September 1991 the applicant and three other persons claimed restitution of real property before the Čadca District Court.
On 17 September 1992 the District Court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed.
On 31 May 1994 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment and instructed the District Court to take further evidence.
On 15 June 1995 the Čadca District Court again dismissed the action.
On 31 May 1996 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed this judgment and instructed the District Court how it should further proceed with the case.
In its third judgment on the case of 19 August 1997 the District Court granted the applicant’s action.
On 30 January 1998 the Žilina Regional Court, acting as appellate court in the case following a restructuring of the courts, quashed the first instance judgment as there had been procedural shortcomings in the proceedings before the District Court.
On 21 April 1998 the Čadca District Court delivered a new judgment granting the applicant’s claim.
On 8 April 1999 the Žilina Regional Court quashed that judgment indicating that the District Court had decided erroneously. The appellate court’s decision was served on 8 January 2000.
On 3 December 2002 the District Court dismissed the action.
On 5 February 2004 the Žilina Regional Court overturned the judgment of 3 December 2002 and granted the plaintiffs’ claim. That judgment became final on 3 March 2004.
On 5 April 2004 the defendant filed an appeal on points of law.
On 10 August 2004 the Čadca District Court exempted the defendant from the obligation to pay the fees of the proceedings on appeal on points of law. Those proceedings are pending.
2. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
On 7 February 2003 the applicant filed a complaint to the Constitutional Court. She sought a finding that the Čadca District Court had violated her constitutional right to a hearing without undue delay. She claimed 1 million Slovakian korunas (SKK) as just satisfaction.
On 9 April 2003 the Constitutional Court declared the above complaint admissible.
On 13 April 2004 the applicant made a new submission to the Constitutional Court inviting it to find that the Žilina District Court had also violated her right to a hearing without undue delay. She claimed just satisfaction of SKK 500,000 in respect of the alleged violation of her rights by the Čadca District Court and another SKK 500,000 in respect of the alleged violation imputable to the the Žilina Regional Court.
On 27 May 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Čadca District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without undue delay. It awarded SKK 100,000[1] as just satisfaction to the applicant in this respect.
In its finding the Constitutional Court noted that the case was complex from both factual and legal point of view. The subject matter of the proceedings called for particular attention of the ordinary courts. While the applicant’s procedural actions may have prolonged the proceedings, their overall length could not be imputed to the applicant.
As to the conduct of the District Court, the Constitutional Court noted that only few periods of complete inactivity were imputable to it. However, the District Court did not proceed with the case in an effective manner as it had failed to respect the binding views expressed by the appellate court. As a result, the appellate court had to quash its judgment four times and it had to overturn the first instance judgment on the fifth occasion.
The Constitutional Court further rejected the complaint about delays imputable to the Žilina Regional Court noting that it had exceeded the scope of the case as defined by the admissibility decision of 9 April 2003. The Constitutional Court held that it could not entertain that complaint because the proceedings complained of had ended by a final decision prior to its introduction.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
As from 1 January 2002, the Constitution has been amended in that, inter alia, individuals and legal persons can complain about a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms pursuant to Article 127. Under this provision the Constitutional Court has the power, where appropriate, to order the authority which violated a person’s constitutional rights to proceed with the case without delay. It may also grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose constitutional right was violated as a result of excessive length of proceedings (for further details see, e.g., Andrášik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos. 57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01, 60226/00, 22 October 2002).
In accordance with its established practice, the Constitutional Court can only entertain complaints about delays in proceedings where such proceedings were pending at the moment when the relevant complaint was submitted to it (see, for example, decision No. II. ÚS 66/02 of 23 April 2002, with further references).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated in the above proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings concerning her restitution claim was excessive. She relied on 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...”
Given the Constitutional Court’s finding of 27 May 2004, the question arises whether the applicant can still claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of her Convention right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
The Court recalls that, by virtue of Article 1 of the Convention, the primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing the guaranteed rights and freedoms is laid on the national authorities. The machinery of complaint to the Court is thus subsidiary to national systems safeguarding human rights (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI). More recently, in Recommendation (2004)6 of 12 May 2004, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe also underlined the subsidiary character of the supervision mechanism set up by the Convention and recommended, inter alia, that the Contracting Parties pay particular attention to the existence of effective remedies in cases of an arguable complaint concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings.
Turning to the facts of the present case the Court recalls that an applicant’s status as a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention depends on the fact whether the domestic authorities acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the alleged infringement of the Convention and, if necessary, provided appropriate redress in relation thereto. Only when these conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, 3 June 2004, with further references).
In the applicant’s case the Constitutional Court, on 27 May 2004, found that the Čadca District Court by its failure to proceed with the case in an effective manner had violated her right to a hearing without undue delay. In this respect it awarded the applicant just satisfaction of SKK 100,000 which is the equivalent of approximately 2,500 euros.
The Court notes that the Constitutional Court was prevented from examining whether undue delays in the proceedings were also due to the Žilina District Court, which had acted as an appellate court in the case on several occasions, as the applicant had failed to introduce her complaint in that respect in accordance with the applicable procedural requirements.
In view of the particular circumstances of the case and to the extent that domestic remedies were exhausted, the Court considers that the sum awarded to the applicant by the Constitutional Court can, as such, be considered as providing adequate redress to her.
Accordingly, the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the proceedings covered by the Constitutional Court’s finding.
Finally, to the extent that the applicant may be understood as complaining about the length of the proceedings concerning the appeal on points of law, the Court notes that those proceedings were brought on 5 April 2004. Their length cannot, for the time being, be considered as excessive.
It follows that this complaint 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.
Françoise Elens-PassosNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] The equivalent of approximately 2,500 euros.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy