FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 56079/21
Tatiana VOLÁROVÁ against Slovakia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 April 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Alena Poláčková,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications nos. 56079/21, 57743/21 and 58274/21 against Slovakia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table, by the applicants listed therein (“the applicants”), who were represented by Mr O. Urban, a lawyer practising in Bratislava;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applications concern the excessive length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that regard.
Application no. 56079/21 (the first applicant)2. On 26 February 2021 the first applicant lodged her first application (no. 12981/21) with the Court, complaining of the excessive length of civil proceedings which she had initiated before the domestic courts on 12 January 2017 (case no. 12 Cpr 2/2017).
3. On 8 April 2021 that application was communicated to the Government and, following their observations, it was declared manifestly ill‑founded on 10 November 2021 (see Volárová v. Slovakia (dec.) [Committee], no. 12981/21, 10 November 2021).
4. On 15 November 2021, the first applicant lodged the present application with the Court and complained of the excessive length of exactly the same proceedings. In her application form she specifically stated that “the current application” was not identical to any other application lodged by her with the Court and that it was the first time that she had submitted the impugned proceedings to the Court for examination. She additionally stated that she had not lodged any other applications before the Court.
Application no. 57743/21 (the second applicant)5. On 28 October 2021 the second applicant sent her first submission to the Court, which concerned the excessive length of civil proceedings initiated before the domestic courts on 10 April 2017 (case no. 18 Csp 32/2017). It was rejected in accordance with Rule 47 of the Rules of Court and, in a letter of 9 November 2021, the Registry informed the second applicant’s lawyer that the submission lacked the requisite information, in particular in respect of the domestic remedies used and their outcome (including information about all constitutional complaints lodged and any possible redress obtained). In addition, the lawyer was specifically made aware of the consequences of intentionally submitting false or misleading information to the Court.
6. The second applicant resubmitted her application concerning the impugned proceedings on 23 November 2021. In her application form she explicitly stated that all her constitutional complaints had been declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court. In support of her application, she submitted the third Constitutional Court’s decision of 30 September 2021 (II. US 444/2021). It followed from that decision that on 16 March 2021 the Constitutional Court had adopted a judgment and found a violation of the second applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the impugned proceedings and awarded her 500 euros (EUR) in just satisfaction (III. US 446/2020).
Application no. 58274/21 (the third applicant)7. On 11 March 2021 the third applicant lodged his first application (no. 14944/21) with the Court, challenging the excessive length of proceedings initiated before the domestic courts on 11 March 2013 (case no. 17 Cpr 2/2013).
8. On 15 April 2021, the application was declared inadmissible by a single judge. The Court found that the applicant had already obtained an acknowledgment of an alleged breach and appropriate redress at domestic level and therefore could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention.
9. On 26 November 2021 the applicant lodged the present application with the Court complaining of the excessive length of the same proceedings. He specifically stated in the application form that it was the first time that he submitted the impugned proceedings to the Court for examination and that he had not lodged any other applications before the Court.
Complaints10. Invoking Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention the applicants complained that their right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated in the various proceedings initiated at the domestic level and that they had not had any effective remedy in respect of those violations.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
11. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
12. The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Řehák v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004). Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Buzinger v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32133/10, § 21, 16 June 2015, and Magát v. Slovakia (dec.) [Committee], no. 28368/19, 10 November 2021).
13. It cannot be the Court’s task to deal with a succession of ill-founded and querulous complaints or with otherwise manifestly abusive conduct of applicants or their authorised representatives, which creates gratuitous work for the Court, incompatible with its real functions under the Convention (see Petrović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 56551/11, 18 October 2011).
14. In the present cases, the Court notes that the information provided by the first and third applicants and their legal representative in their application forms was clearly untrue, as it specifically indicated that the applicants had not lodged any previous applications before the Court. In this regard, the Court notes that it has already considered applications to be abusive on the ground that the applicants or their representatives did not duly inform the Court that a number of applications were pending before the Court in the name of the same applicant (see Danese and Others v. Italy (dec.) [Committee], nos. 11399/16 and 11436/16, 13 September 2016, with further references).
15. As regards the second applicant, the Court notes that she and her legal representative have provided the Court with misleading information concerning the very core of the case, namely concerning the question of victim status for the alleged violation of the Convention and, potentially, the amount of just satisfaction to be awarded under Article 41 (see Buzinger, cited above, § 21).
16. The Court reiterates that an irresponsible or frivolous attitude towards the Court by the applicant or his representative may result in the application being dismissed as abusive (see Danese and Others, cited above). In this regard, the Court cannot but observe that all the applicants were represented by the same lawyer in their applications lodged before the Court as well as before the domestic courts. Their legal representative thus must have had knowledge of the outcome of the previous proceedings, including those at the domestic level, and was, in addition, explicitly warned of the consequences of providing the Court with false or misleading information (see paragraph 5 above).
17. The Court further reiterates that lawyers must understand that, having due regard to the Court’s duty to examine allegations of human rights violations, they must show a high level of professional prudence and meaningful cooperation with the Court by sparing it from the introduction of unmeritorious complaints and, once proceedings have been instituted, then meticulously abide by all the relevant rules of the procedure and urge their clients to do the same (see Bekauri v. Georgia (preliminary objection), no. 14102/02, § 24, 10 April 2012). Otherwise, the wilful or negligent misuse of the Court’s resources may undermine the credibility of lawyers’ work in the eyes of the Court and may even, if it occurs systematically, result in particular individual lawyers being banned from representing applicants under Rule 36 § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court (see Stevančević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 67618/09, § 29, 10 January 2017).
18. In view of the above considerations, the Court finds that by providing false and misleading information to the Court, the applicants and their representative lied to it, clearly demonstrating a conduct which was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention. The applications must therefore be rejected as an abuse of petition, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 5 May 2022.
Liv Tigerstedt Péter Paczolay
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
1.
56079/21
Volárová v. Slovakia
15/11/2021
Tatiana VOLÁROVÁ
1959
Malacky
2.
57743/21
Jakušová v. Slovakia
23/11/2021
Eva JAKUŠOVÁ
1972
Banská Bystrica
3.
58274/21
Urban v. Slovakia
26/11/2021
Štefan URBAN
1957
Slanec