BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF RADVÁK AND RADVÁKOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 25657/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 January
2011
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be
subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Radvák and Radváková v.
Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša
Vučinić,
Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 7 December 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 25657/08) against the
Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34
of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Slovak nationals, Mr
Ivan Radvák and Mrs Vladimíra Radváková
(“the applicants”), on 23 May 2008.
- The
applicants were represented by Mrs I. Rajtáková, a
lawyer practising in Košice. The Government of
the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
- On
15 March 2010 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article
29 § 1).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants are siblings. They were born in 1984 and 1983 respectively
and live in Košice.
1. Civil proceedings
- On
29 March 2000 the applicants claimed payment of an amount then
equivalent to 428 euros (EUR) from three defendants before the Košice
II District Court.
- On
19 March 2007 the applicants informed the district court about their
intention to withdraw their action and requested the district court
to discontinue the proceedings. They did so after they had learned
that it was impossible to verify a signature on a relevant document.
- On
7 June 2007 the district court discontinued the proceedings and
obliged the applicants to pay the court fees.
- On
31 August 2007 the Košice Regional
Court, upon the applicants' appeal in respect of the court
fees, upheld the first-instance decision. The proceedings
finally ended on 24 October 2007.
2. Constitutional proceedings
- On
19 March 2007 the applicants complained to the Constitutional Court
about the length of the proceedings before the district court.
On 24 May 2007 the Constitutional Court declared their
complaint admissible.
- On
11 October 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants'
complaint. It stated that it could examine complaints concerning
length of proceedings only where the proceedings were still pending
and the applicants had a genuine legal interest in their
continuation. The Constitutional Court held that there had been no
legal uncertainty in the case following the applicants' withdrawal of
the action and therefore their lodging of the constitutional
complaint had been formalistic and unfounded.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. The Constitutional Court Act 1993
(Law no. 38/1993 Coll., as amended)
- Section
53 (3) provides that a constitutional complaint can be lodged within
a period of two months from the date on which the decision in
question has become final and binding or on which a measure has been
notified or on which notice of other interference has been given. As
regards measures and other interferences, the above period commences
when the complainant could have become aware of them.
2. Practice of the Constitutional Court
- It
has been the practice of the Constitutional Court to entertain
complaints about excessive length of proceedings only where the
proceedings complained of are pending before the authority liable for
the alleged violation at the moment when such complaints are lodged
(III. ÚS 150/03).
- In
two judgments (I. ÚS 182/06, I. ÚS
23/06) submitted by the applicants, the Constitutional Court,
contrary to the above practice, examined alleged delays
notwithstanding that the proceedings had ended prior to the filing of
a constitutional complaint. The Constitutional Court found a
violation of the complainants' right to a hearing within a reasonable
time.
- The
Constitutional Court has held that the aim of the right to a hearing
without unjustified delays is to eliminate legal uncertainty in which
a person, who requests delivery of a decision by a State authority,
is placed. Such legal certainty is normally brought about as a result
of a final decision (I. ÚS 175/06).
- In
a number of cases the Constitutional Court held that a constitutional
complaint was manifestly ill-founded where the impugned conduct of a
public authority could not have violated the fundamental right as
alleged by the plaintiff for lack of a causal link. Such was also the
case where a procedural situation or the state of the proceedings
before a public authority objectively excluded the possibility that
such an authority (ordinary court) violates the afore-mentioned
fundamental right (IV. ÚS 16/04, II. ÚS
1/05, II. ÚS 20/05, IV. ÚS 55/05, IV. ÚS
288/05).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government argued that the applicants had not exhausted domestic
remedies as they had failed to seek redress before the Constitutional
Court in accordance with the statutory requirements and the
Constitutional Court's practice. They reiterated the reasoning
of the Constitutional Court's decision and considered the latter to
be in accordance with the Court's case-law (see Mazurek
v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 16970/05, 3 March
2009).
- As
to the two judgments of the Constitutional Court (I. ÚS
182/06, I. ÚS 23/06) invoked by the applicants, the
Government stated that, unlike in the present case, the applicants in
the judgments quoted had had a genuine legal interest in the
continuation of the proceedings.
- The
applicants contested the above arguments. They stated that the
purpose of an effective remedy was to obtain relief – either
preventive or compensatory - for an alleged violation of one's
Convention rights. The applicants further argued that they had
exhausted domestic remedies by lodging their constitutional complaint
before the district court had decided on the case.
- The
Court first reiterates that, in respect of the
alleged violation of the applicants' right to a hearing within a
reasonable time, it is irrelevant that the applicants withdrew their
claim and that, as a result, the ordinary court did not ultimately
determine the merits of the case (see ČíZ
v. Slovakia, no. 66142/01, § 61, 14 October 2003).
- As regards applications against Slovakia concerning
the length of proceedings the Court has held that a complaint under
Article 127 of the Constitution is, in principle, an effective
remedy which applicants are required to use for the purpose of
Article 35 of the Convention (see Andrášik and
Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos. 57984/00,
60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01, 60226/00,
22 October 2002). It has also held that applicants should
formulate their complaints in a manner permitting the Constitutional
Court to examine the overall duration of the proceedings (see Obluk
v. Slovakia, no. 69484/01, § 62,
20 June 2006).
- Domestic law stipulates a two-month time-limit for
submitting complaints under Article 127 of the Constitution. However,
the practice of the Constitutional Court has been not to apply this
time-limit to length of proceedings complaints and to examine only
those complaints which were lodged before the proceedings complained
of had ended. This practice has been accepted by the Court (see
Mazurek, cited above).
- In
the case of Mazurek
(cited above), the applicant lodged his constitutional complaint
after the proceedings had been terminated by a final decision.
This is not the case in the present application. The applicants
lodged their complaint with the Constitutional Court before the
district court had delivered a decision to discontinue the
proceedings and before that decision became final. The subsequent
developments in the proceedings showed that an appeal had been lodged
against the first instance decision in respect of court fees.
Although the district court was not dealing with the merits of the
case after the withdrawal of the action by the applicants, it still
had to carry out several procedural steps.
- Even
though the Constitutional Court, when rejecting the applicants'
complaint, relied on the principle of legal certainty, the Court is
of the opinion that the state of legal uncertainty in the context of
judicial or administrative proceedings can be eliminated only when
such proceedings have ended. Accordingly, it has been the Court's
practice to examine the duration of proceedings as a whole, that is
up until the time they have ended by a final decision.
25.
In these circumstances, the manner in which the applicants' complaint
was dealt with by the Constitutional Court failed to meet the purpose
of protection of their right under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time in the manner as
interpreted and applied by the Court.
- The
Government's objection relating to the applicants' failure to exhaust
domestic remedies must therefore be dismissed.
- The
overall proceedings lasted 7 years and 7 months at two levels of
jurisdiction. During this period, the proceedings were pending 7
years and 3 months before the district court.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
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.
- There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly
the applicants complained that they had no effective remedy at their
disposal within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, which
reads:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government argued that the applicants had an effective remedy at
their disposal, namely a complaint under Article 127 of the
Constitution.
- The
applicants contested the above argument and argued that although they
had turned to the Constitutional Court, the latter's decision had not
provided them with any redress. Pointing to the quoted judgments of
the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 13 above) the applicants
argued that termination of the proceedings in those two cases had not
been an obstacle to finding a violation of those applicants' right to
a hearing within a reasonable time.
- The
Court notes that the complaint concerning absence of an effective
remedy for the alleged breach of the applicants' right to a hearing
within a reasonable time is not manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes
that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore
be declared admissible.
Merits
- The Court reiterates that the remedy under Article 127
of the Constitution is likely to provide appropriate and sufficient
redress to applicants where it allows for examination of the length
of the proceedings complained of (see Kudła v. Poland [GC],
no. 30210/96, §§ 158 and 159, ECHR 2000 XI, and
Andrášik and Others cited above).
- The
applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. Although
they did so at the time when the proceedings had not yet been
concluded by a final decision, the Constitutional Court refused to
examine it. As established in paragraph 25
above, the manner in which the applicants' complaint was dealt with
by the Constitutional Court failed to meet the purpose of protection
of their right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a
hearing within a reasonable time as interpreted and applied by the
Court. The Court, therefore, considers that the applicants'
right to an effective remedy has not been respected
(see mutatis mutandis,
A. R., spol. s r. o. v.
Slovakia, no. 13960/06, §§
59-60, 9 February 2010).
- There
has therefore been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- 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.”
A. Damage
- The
applicants claimed EUR 8,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government considered the claim exaggerated.
- Having
regard to its case-law on the subject and to the relatively low
amount claimed by the applicants in the domestic proceedings, the
Court awards EUR 2,000 to each of the applicants in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants also claimed EUR 595 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Constitutional Court and EUR 714 for those incurred before
the Court.
- The
Government pointed to the Court's case-law stating that there was a
need for human rights lawyers to be moderate in the fees they charged
to applicants. The Government underlined the fact that the applicants
had not supported their claims by any evidence. They requested the
Court to grant the applicants compensation for only reasonably
incurred costs and expenses and to dismiss the rest of their claims.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the absence of any documents supporting
the applicants' claims, the Court makes no award under this head.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,000 (two
thousand euros) each plus any tax that may be chargeable in respect
of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza Deputy
Registrar President
