Last Updated on June 14, 2021 by LawEuro
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF RATICOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 20305/20)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 June 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Raticová v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Alena Poláčková,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 May 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Slovakia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 5 May 2020.
2. The applicant, who is a Slovak national, was represented by Mr D. Remeta, a lawyer practising in Prešov.
3. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of enforcement proceedings that she had initiated on 3 August 2009 (her submission was delivered to the Humenné District Court on 4 August 2009).
6. On 14 October 2010 the Humenné District Court dismissed the debtor’s objections against the enforcement. Between November 2010 and June 2018 the debtor unsuccessfully lodged several objections or demanded the proceedings to be discontinued.
7. On 29 July 2019 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint challenging the length of the enforcement proceedings before the District Court.
8. On 11 February 2020 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint as manifestly ill-founded (I. US 81/2020), finding that the enforcement proceedings had not been excessively long. It noted that the applicant had failed to properly formulate the summary of her complaint, as she had only challenged the part of the proceedings before the District Court and not the length of the proceedings before the enforcement officer. The Constitutional Court in addition found that apart from the debtor’s objections dismissed on 14 October 2010, all his other objections or requests had not had suspensive effect and hence could not have had any influence on the proceedings.
9. It follows from the Government’s observations that on 7 April 2020, the applicant lodged a second constitutional complaint, this time challenging the length of the proceedings both before the District Court and before the enforcement officer.
10. On 22 October 2020, the Constitutional Court, noting that the proceedings had lasted almost 11 years and the enforcement officer had been unable to obtain anything from the debtor, found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time, ordered the District Court and the enforcement officer to proceed without delays, and awarded the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) in just satisfaction (II. US 327/2020). The decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 4 November 2020.
11. The enforcement proceedings are still pending.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
12. The applicant complained that the length of the enforcement proceedings before both the enforcement officer and the Humenné District Court had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …”
13. Given that the applicant had not informed the Court about the Constitutional Court’s decision of 22 October 2020 (see paragraph 10 above), the Government asserted that the present application amounted to an abuse of a right of individual petition. The Government further submitted that the applicant had lost her victim status as a consequence of the acknowledgment of the violation by the Constitutional Court, the acceleratory effect of the judgment and the financial compensation awarded.
14. The applicant contested the Government’s arguments asserting that she had lodged her second constitutional complaint in order to also challenge the proceedings before the enforcement officer (which she had failed to do in her first constitutional complaint). She found the amount of the Constitutional Court’s award insufficient, emphasizing that the proceedings were still pending and concerned the payment of non-pecuniary damages following the death of her husband.
15. The Court notes that relevant principles applicable to the abuse of a right of individual application have been summarized in the Court’s judgment Gross v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014).
16. It observes that the present application was communicated to the Government on 22 September 2019 and the applicant accepted the friendly settlement by a letter dated 15 October 2020 (delivered to the Court on 23 October 2020), that is before the adoption of the second Constitutional Court’s decision. It was only after that date that the applicant learned about the award granted by the Constitutional Court. Moreover, according to the domestic law, as long as the proceedings are pending, the applicant is entitled to complain about their length before the Constitutional Court, including repeatedly. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the applicant cannot be considered as having failed to provide the Court with information concerning the very core of her case (see a contrario, Hadrabová and Others v. Czech Republic (dec.), nos. 42165/02 and 466/03, 25 September 2007), and thus dismisses the Government’s objection in this respect.
17. As regards the applicant’s victim status, the Court notes that in its second decision the Constitutional Court examined the overall length of the proceedings which had at that time lasted ten years and eight months (from 4 August 2009 until 7 April 2020) for one level of jurisdiction, including the proceedings before the enforcement officer. It found that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay and awarded her EUR 3,000 EUR in just satisfaction. Considering that the enforcement proceedings have been pending for more than eleven years and pertain to the enforcement of non-pecuniary damages following the death of the applicant’s husband, the Court finds that such an amount cannot be considered sufficient in the light of the Court’s case-law (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 205-06 and 214-15, ECHR 2006‑V,). The applicant can accordingly still claim to be a “victim” of a breach of the “reasonable time” requirement.
18. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
19. In the leading case of Obluk v. Slovakia (no. 69484/01, 20 September 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
20. Having examined all the material submitted, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
21. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
22. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
23. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Obluk v. Slovakia, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
24. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that this application disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 June 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay
Acting Deputy Registrar President
_________
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
| Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth |
Representative’s name and location | Start of proceedings | End of proceedings | Total length
Levels of jurisdiction |
Domestic court
File number Domestic award (in euros) |
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1] |
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2] |
| 20305/20
05/05/2020 |
Helena RATICOVÁ
1956 |
Dušan Remeta
Prešov |
03/08/2009 | pending | More than 11 years, 7 months and 29 days
1 level of jurisdiction |
Constitutional Court
I. US 81/2020, II. US 327/2020
3,000 |
5,200 | 250 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Leave a Reply