44286/06

FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF KÁNTOROVÁ v. SLOVAKIA   (Application no. 44286/06)                       JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   14 December 2010     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kántorová v. Slovakia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Lech Garlicki, President,  Ján Šikuta,  Vincent Anthony de Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in an application (no. 44286/06) 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 a Slovak national, Ms Margita Kántorová (“the applicant”), on 23 October 2006. 2.  The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková. 3.  On 7 February 2008 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Košice. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1. Proceedings concerning the distribution of matrimonial property 6.  In an action of 19 July 1991 filed with the Košice II District Court the applicant sought the distribution of her and her former husband's matrimonial property. 7.  The District Court held a number of hearings and obtained evidence including an expert opinion. The Košice Regional Court dealt twice with a challenge of bias against the District Court judge and once with the applicant's appeal against a decision to pay an advance for the costs of an expert opinion. 8.  On 23 January 2007 the District Court determined the merits of the case. Both the applicant and the defendant appealed. The District Court transmitted the case to the court of appeal on 9 January 2008. The court of appeal quashed the first-instance judgment on 8 July 2009 and remitted the case to the District Court for a new determination. 2. Constitutional proceedings 9.  On 10 May 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice II District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. The applicant by her conduct had contributed to the length of the proceedings. The District Court was responsible for delays totalling 6 years and 8 months during the period subsequent to 15 February 1993 which fell within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. 10.  The Constitutional Court awarded 100,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs. THE LAW I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 11.  The applicant 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 12.   The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time since the amount of just satisfaction awarded to her had been adequate in the circumstances of the case. Moreover, the Constitutional Court's judgment had preventive effect since eight months after its finding the District Court had delivered a judgment. As to the course of the proceedings following the Constitutional Court's judgment, the Government submitted that the applicant was required to have recourse again to the Constitutional Court under Article 127 of the Constitution. 13.  The applicant disagreed. 14.  The Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration began only on 18 March 1992, when the recognition by the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, to which Slovakia is one of the successor States, of the right of individual petition took effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the fact that, already at that time, the proceedings had been pending for almost eight months. It follows that under the Court's temporal jurisdiction the length of the proceedings at the time of the Constitutional Court's judgment had lasted almost 14 years and 2 months at two levels of jurisdiction. The court of appeal dealt with three procedural issues and for the majority of time the case had been dealt with by the court of first‑instance. 15.  The Court further notes that the Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 100,000 in just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. As regards the relevant period of the proceedings examined by the Constitutional Court, this amount cannot be considered to have provided adequate and sufficient redress to the applicant in view of the Court's established case-law (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006-V, and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-107, ECHR 2006-V). In view of the above, it concludes that the applicant did not lose her status as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see, for example, Bič v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, § 37, 4 November 2008) of a violation of her right under Article 6 § 1 to a hearing within a reasonable time. 16.  The Court notes that this part of the application 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 17.  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, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 18.  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). 19.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court finds no 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 concurs with the Constitutional Court that the length of the proceedings up to the date of the Constitutional Court's judgment was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 20.  The Court notes that after the delivery of the Constitutional Court's judgment the proceedings before the District Court lasted more than four years and five months at two levels of jurisdiction and they are still pending. 21.  In the light of the above and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the overall length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 22.  There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1. II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 23.  After the application had been communicated to the Government, the applicant also complained that her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions had been violated in consequence of the length of the proceedings. She relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 24.  The Court observes that the applicant had not raised this complaint in her complaint before the Constitutional Court, nor did she seek redress of the alleged violation before the courts at the domestic level. 25.  It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 26.  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 27.  The applicant had not specified the amount of damage inviting the Court to determine the appropriate amount of both pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage on equitable basis. 28.  The Government requested the Court not to grant the applicant any award in respect of pecuniary damage since she had failed to show existence of causal link between the alleged violation and pecuniary damage claimed. As to the claim for non-pecuniary damage they left the matter to the Court's discretion, pointing out that the just satisfaction granted already to the applicant at the domestic level should be taken into account. 29.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, having regard to its case‑law on the subject and to the fact that the applicant obtained some redress at the domestic level, it awards the applicant EUR 6,500 under that head. B.  Costs and expenses 30.  The applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. C.  Default interest 31.  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   1.  Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;   2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   3.  Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months EUR 6,500 (six thousand five hundred euros), 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;   4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Fatoş Aracı Lech Garlicki               Deputy Registrar President