CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 31 août 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD87A9275 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4EC3C151 { width:116.76pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 60788/21 Ján RYBÁR and Simona VESELSKÁ against Slovakia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 31   August   2023 as a Committee composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Ivana Jelić , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13   December 2021, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Mr T. Sisá k, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”). The impugned proceedings started on 10 August 2018 when the applicants lodged an action for unjust enrichment against the defendant company. On 28 September 2020 the first-instance court issued a preliminary judgment concerning the legal basis of the applicants’ claim ( medzitýmny rozsudok ), against which the defendant company appealed. On 31   March 2021 the first-instance court submitted the case file to the appellate court, which rejected the appeal and returned the case to the former on 14   April 2021. On 9 September 2021 the first-instance court granted the applicants’ action by a default judgment, which became final on 21 September 2021. On 18   May 2022 the decision concerning the legal costs became final and the proceedings ended. On 9 November 2021 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint, lodged on 11 August 2021, concerning their right to a trial within a reasonable time before the first-instance court. It considered that the impugned proceedings had lasted approximately three years when the applicants had lodged their constitutional complaint, which it did not find excessive given the procedural activity and the decisions issued by the first ‑ instance court so far. Moreover, it took into account that the court’s conduct had been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic (IV.   ÚS   569/2021).   THE LAW The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to disclose before the Court important information relevant for the case, that is the fact that the proceedings had been held before two levels of courts since the defendant company had appealed against the preliminary judgment of 28 September 2020. They argued that the period before the appellate court, running from 31   March until 14 April 2021, should thus be excluded from the examination by the Court. Furthermore, the Government endorsed the findings of the Constitutional Court that the impugned period before the first-instance court had been adversely impacted by the Covid-19 emergency situation declared on 11   March 2020 and the subsequent state of emergency in Slovakia, which ended on 13 June 2020. During this period, the first-instance court cancelled the hearing of 16 March 2020. After the state of emergency was lifted, on 30   June 2020 a new hearing was scheduled, ultimately for 28 September 2020, when the preliminary judgment was issued. Therefore, the Government considered that the delay which had occurred during this period should not be imputed to the State. In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicants’ complaints about the length of the proceedings in their case are inadmissible. With reference to the fact that the applicants failed to inform the Court that the proceedings were held before two levels of the domestic courts, of which the Court was informed by the Government, the Court notes at the outset that incomplete and therefore misleading information submitted during the course of the Convention proceedings may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see   Gross v.   Switzerland   [GC], no.   67810/10, § 28, ECHR   2014, and Kaliňák and Fico v. Slovakia [CTE] (dec.), nos. 40734/22 and 40803/22, § 12, 28 February 2023). Be it as it may, the Court notes that the applicants’ constitutional complaint was not at all directed against the appellate court. Hence, the period from 31   March until 14 April 2021 is outside the scope of the examination by the Court due to the applicants’ failure to exhaust domestic remedies in accordance with the applicable procedural rules and established practice (see Obluk v.   Slovakia , no. 69484/01, § 62, 20 June 2006). It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court notes that, excluding the period before the appellate court, the impugned proceedings before the first-instance court lasted approximately three years and two months at the time of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 9   November 2021. The Court has previously found that although the State cannot be absolved from its responsibility for the lengthy proceedings, the Covid-19 restrictions could have had an adverse effect on the processing of cases (see Q and   R v.   Slovenia , no. 19938/20, §80, 8 February 2022). In the present case, considering the above-mentioned period under examination and the fact that the first-instance court scheduled a new hearing two weeks after the restrictions had been lifted, the Court is ready to take into account that the Covid-19 restrictions applicable in Slovakia between March and June 2020 had some adverse effect on the length of the impugned proceedings. Moreover, considering that at the time when the Constitutional Court issued its decision the proceedings had been pending only in the part concerning the final calculation of the legal costs which depended on the applicants’ submission of such a calculation and the supporting documents, its decision that there had been no breach of the reasonable time requirement can be accepted. In respect of the proceedings subsequent to the Constitutional Court’s decision, the applicants could have turned again to the Constitutional Court (see the recapitulation of the relevant principles in Becová v.   Slovakia (dec.), no.   23788/06, 18 September 2007). In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 21 September 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Krzysztof Wojtyczek   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) 60788/21 13/12/2021 Ján RYBÁR 1988   Simona VESELSKÁ 1993   Tomáš Sisák Bratislava 10/08/2018 15/04/2021 30/03/2021 09/11/2021 3 years, 2 months and 17 days 1 level of jurisdiction   Constitutional Court IV. US 569/2021   0