CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 19 octobre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5877D727 { width:30.27pt; display:inline-block } .sAA9FBCCE { width:214.31pt; display:inline-block } .s576DFC5F { width:15.93pt; display:inline-block } .sAA5C5B93 { width:187.63pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt }       FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF WOLFF v. SLOVAKIA   (Application no. 42356/05)                       JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   19 October 2010     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Wolff 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 28 September 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no.   42356/05) 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 Slovakian national, Mr Peter Wolff (“the applicant”), on 19 November 2005. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr Š. Meliš, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The Slovak Government (“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 14, the application is assigned to a Committee of three Judges. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava. 5.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1. Proceedings concerning the applicant's restitution claim 6.     On 15 May 1991 the applicant and other plaintiffs filed an action for restitution of real property to the Bratislava V District Court. 7.     On 11 January 1994 the District Court dismissed the action. On 12   October 1994 the Bratislava City Court remitted the case to the District Court following an appeal by the applicant. 8.     On 23 June 1995 the District Court again dismissed the action. On 14   December 1995 the court of appeal upheld the relevant part of the first ‑ instance judgment. On 20 March 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the court of appeal's judgment. The case was remitted to the District Court. 9.     In its third judgment given on 18 February 1999 the District Court decided in the applicant's favour. On 17 March 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed that judgment in part. In December 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law filed by other plaintiff. 10.     On 5 March 2003 the District Court granted the action. On 30 March 2004 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment in part and remitted it to the first-instance court; it dismissed the remainder of the claim. 11.     On 29 April 2005 the Supreme Court quashed a part of the court of appeal's judgment a remitted the case to it. 12.     On 30 June 2005 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the relevant part of the first-instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings. The decision was served on the parties on 30 August 2005. 2. Constitutional proceedings 13.     On 18 June 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava   V District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. The facts of the case were complex and the applicant by his conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court awarded 70,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) [1] to the applicant in just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's legal costs. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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 15.     The Government agreed with the Constitutional Court in that the length of the proceedings in this case had been unreasonable. However, they expressed the view that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time since the amount of just satisfaction awarded to the applicant had not been manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case. As to the further course of the proceedings following the Constitutional Court's judgment, they submitted that the applicant was required to have recourse again to the Constitutional Court under Article 127 of the Constitution. 16.     The applicant disagreed. 17.     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 course of the proceedings preceding the relevant date. It follows that the proceedings at the time of the Constitutional Court's judgment had lasted eleven years and three months at three levels of jurisdiction. 18.     The Court further notes that the Constitutional Court awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR 1,685 in just satisfaction in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. As regards the relevant period of the proceedings examined by the Constitutional Court, as well as the state of the proceedings at the time when the Convention entered into force in respect of the respondent State, 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, the Court concludes that the applicant did not lose his 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). 19.     The Court notes that 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 20.     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). 21.     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). 22.     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. 23.     The Court notes in particular that after the delivery of the Constitutional Court's judgment the proceedings before the District Court lasted some two years and two months at three levels of jurisdiction. Thus, the overall length of the proceedings under consideration was more than thirteen years and five months at three levels of jurisdictions. 24.     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 length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 25.     There has accordingly been a breach of Article   6 §   1. II.     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 claimed EUR   53,000 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. 28.     The Government contested that claim. 29.     Ruling on an equitable basis and having regard to the fact that the applicant obtained partial redress in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the Court awards EUR   2,300 under that head.   B.     Costs and expenses 30.     The applicant also claimed EUR 2,172 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. That sum comprised legal representation costs (EUR 2,112) and postal expenses (EUR 60). 31.     As to the applicant's costs of legal representation before the Court, the Government stated that the claim was exaggerated. They did not contest the claim for postal costs. 32.     The Court will make an award in respect of costs and expenses in so far as these were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. The Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 1,100 (see Gerstbrein v.   Slovakia , no.   17252/04, §   27, 21 April 2009). C.     Default interest 33.     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 application admissible;   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, the following amounts: (i) EUR 2,300 (two thousand three hundred euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 1,100 (one thousand one hundred euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; (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;   4.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 October 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Fatoş Aracı   Lech Garlicki   Deputy Registrar   President 1. SKK 70,000 was the equivalent of 1,685 euros (EUR) at that time.