FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32494/05
by Viera ZEMANOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 August 2005,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 31 May 2007 and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Viera Zemanová, is a Slovak national who was born in 1950 and lives in Poprad. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Action
On 17 February 1998 the applicant brought an action against the Poprad Municipal Administration of Roads (Správa mestských komunikácií) in the Poprad District Court (Okresný súd). She submitted that on 15 March 1996 she had been walking in Poprad on a pavement looked after by the defendant. She had slid on the icy surface and had fallen on her back suffering a vertebrae fracture and an injury to her kidney. Arguing that the cause of her accident had been the inappropriate maintenance of the pavement by the defendant, the applicant claimed compensation for loss of income and pain.
On 15 May 1998 the District Court held a hearing. Following the hearing, on the same day, the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the defendant, as identified by the applicant, did not exist.
On 2 December 1998 the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd) overturned the decision of 15 May 1998 and remitted the matter to the District Court on the applicant’s appeal. It found that the District Court had failed to afford the applicant a chance to correct shortcomings in her action before discontinuing the proceedings, as required under Article 43 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
On 4 March 1999 the applicant identified the defendant in accordance with the applicable procedural requirements.
On 9 March 1999 the District Court requested the applicant to specify in detail her claim for damages and to support it by documentary evidence. The applicant responded on 11 and 14 May 1999.
In February 2000 the District Court requested the defendant’s observations in reply, which the defendant filed on 9 March 2000.
On 9 February 2001 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicant extended her claim. The hearing was adjourned at her request so that she could prepare and submit an amended statement of claim.
On 5 April and 2 May 2001, respectively, the applicant submitted her revised statement of claim and identified her witness. The District Court called that witness for an interview in chambers (informatívny výsluch) on 18 May 2001.
On 31 January and 25 February 2002 the District Court requested the defendant’s observations in reply to the applicant’s extended claim, which the defendant filed on 26 March 2002.
On 30 September 2002 the District Court interviewed the applicant in chambers. She submitted a new claim for damages.
On 3 January 2003 the applicant submitted a fresh medical evaluation of her injuries and adjusted her claim in accordance with it.
On 30 April and 26 May 2003 the District Court held hearings. The second hearing took place at the site of the accident and was adjourned with a view to obtaining expert evidence from a traumatologist.
On 29 June 2003 the District Court appointed a traumatologist who submitted a report on the applicant’s injuries on 1 October 2003.
On 28 January 2004 the District Court judge excused herself from sitting in the case due to a conflict of interest. On 17 March 2004 the Regional Court ruled that there were no sustainable reasons to exclude her.
On 30 July 2004 the District Court invited the parties to comment on the expert report of 1 October 2003.
On 21 and 24 February 2005 the District Court held hearings. At the latter hearing it pronounced an interim judgment (medzitímny rozsudok). It ruled that the applicant’s claim for damages was well founded as to its substance and that the amount to be awarded to her would be determined later in a final judgment.
On 23 May and 14 June 2005, respectively, the defendant appealed and the applicant filed observations in reply to the appeal.
On 5 April 2006 the Regional Court heard the appeal and, on the same day, upheld the interim judgment.
On 23 October the District Court held a hearing at which the applicant extended her claim for damages. The hearing was adjourned in order to allow the applicant to submit her extended claim in writing and the court to obtain a report from the applicant’s doctor.
Another hearing was scheduled for 23 April 2007. The proceedings are still pending.
2. Constitutional complaint
On 9 March 2004 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) under Article 127 of the Constitution of the length of the proceedings in her action. She claimed 200,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) in compensation for her non-pecuniary damage.
On 5 May 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible.
On 6 October 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution), ordered the District Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously, awarded the applicant SKK 25,000[2] by way of just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered the reimbursement of her legal costs.
The Constitutional Court found that the subject-matter of the proceedings was of no particular legal complexity. Nevertheless, the need to obtain complex expert evidence made it to some extent factually complex. This however did not justify the overall length of the proceedings.
The applicant had caused some delays by modifying her statement of claim several times and by occasionally failing to adduce evidence in support of her assertions in due time.
The Constitutional Court observed that the District Court had held no more than 3 hearings and had been either inactive or inefficient in its conduct of the case for more than 2 ½ years.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings in her action had been excessive.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. 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...”
By letter dated 31 May 2007 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government acknowledge both the applicant’s status of victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved.
I, Marica Pirošíková, the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government offer to pay ex gratia to the applicant Ms Viera Zemanová the sum of EUR 2,800 (two thousand eight hundred euros). This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred by the applicant with respect to the violation of her right under the Convention.
The Government would suggest that the above information might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case out of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
In the event of the Court’s decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Government undertake to pay to the applicant the declared sum within three months from the date of notification of the decision. This sum will be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. This payment will constitute final settlement of the case.”
The applicant in her written reply dated 21 June 2007 requested the Court to reject the Government’s initiative essentially on the basis that the compensation proposed was insufficient.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
The Court also recalls that under certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005 IX).
The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ....). Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against the Slovak Republic (see, for example, Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006; Rišková v. Slovakia, no. 58174/00, §§ 88-97, 22 August 2006 or Sika v. Slovakia, no. 2132/02, §§ 28-35, 13 June 2006).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed (which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar as cited above; Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, judgment of 26 March 2002 and also (see Felbert v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 14081/03, 19 June 2007) ). Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
The Court would point out that, since the applicant’s civil claim is still pending before the domestic courts, the Court’s strike out decision is without prejudice to use by the applicant of Article 127 of the Constitution to obtain redress for any continuing delay in the proceedings.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] SKK 200,000 is equivalent to approximately 5,700 euros (EUR).
[2] SKK 25,000 is equivalent to approximately EUR 700.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy