CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF1F8E4D4 { width:130.09pt; 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 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 16973/22 Peter ŠIMEK against Slovakia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30   May   2024 as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 26   March 2022, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr V. Šárnik, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings were communicated to the Slovak Government (“the Government”). On 12 December 2016 a company entitled on the basis of an arbitration award to receive a payment of approximately 2,000 euros (EUR) from the applicant sought the enforcement of its claim. On 19 January 2017 the court appointed an enforcement officer. On 14 March 2017 the latter submitted to the court the applicant’s objections against the enforcement. Upon the court’s request of 18 May 2017, the applicant confirmed that he had brought an action seeking to set aside the arbitration award and asking that the enforcement proceedings be discontinued. The court suspended the enforcement proceedings awaiting the outcome of the applicant’s action on 11 July 2017. On 14 October 2019 the applicant informed the court that the arbitration award had been set aside and asked it to discontinue the enforcement proceedings. On 9 November 2021 the Constitutional Court (no. IV. US 394/2021) granted a constitutional appeal by the applicant. It observed that while the court had proceeded smoothly until the suspension of the proceedings in July 2017, it had been inactive since October 2019, breaching the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It thus awarded him EUR 1,000 as just satisfaction and ordered the court to act without delay. On 19 July 2022 the court discontinued the enforcement proceedings. It   observed in the reasoning of the decision that in the enforcement proceedings the defendant was not entitled to any reimbursement of his costs, with the exception of those related to his objections to the enforcement, if successful, which was not the case at hand. On 3 August 2022 the applicant asked that a formal decision be taken on his costs. On 12 September 2022 the court referred to the reasoning of its decision of 19 July 2022 and informed the applicant that no formal decision could be issued on his costs. THE LAW Referring to the findings of the Constitutional Court, the Government considered that the applicant was no longer a “victim” of the alleged violation. They observed that the impugned enforcement proceedings had been pending from 12 December 2016 until 11 July 2017 and then from 14   October 2019 until 19 July 2022. As regards the period posterior to 14   October 2019, the Constitutional Court acknowledged that there had been delays and awarded the applicant just satisfaction of EUR 1,000, which had to be considered sufficient also in the light of the fact that it amounted to a half of the sum at the origin of the enforcement proceedings. The Court notes that the period during which the enforcement proceedings were suspended has to be excluded from the period under consideration since it does not appear from the file that the applicant would have been affected in any manner whatsoever during that time. It also observes that it follows from the communication between the applicant and the enforcement court that no further decision on the costs is awaited; thus, the proceedings are no longer pending, contrary to what was asserted by the applicant. Thus, the Court agrees with the Government that the proceedings lasted three years and four months before one level of jurisdiction and that the domestic award granted on that account to the applicant by the Constitutional Court constituted appropriate and sufficient redress. The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicant can no longer be considered a victim of the breach of the Convention complained of. In view of the above, the Court finds that the complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35   §   3   (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 20 June 2024.     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) 16973/22 26/03/2022 Peter ŠIMEK 1979 Vladimír Šárnik Bratislava 12/12/2016 14/10/2019 11/07/2017 19/07/2022 3 years and 4   months and 6   days   1 level of jurisdiction Constitutional Court: IV. US 394/2021   1,000