CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 23 octobre 2025

.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 } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s459D9084 { width:131.09pt; 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 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .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 } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF LACKOVÁ AND LACKO v. SLOVAKIA (Application no. 32769/22)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 23 October 2025       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Lacková and Lacko v. Slovakia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Frédéric Krenc , President ,   Davor Derenčinović,   Alain Chablais , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 2 October 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Slovakia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 28   June   2022. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr O. Urban. Following his exclusion from representation under Rule 44D §§ 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court on 11 April 2023, for a period of two years starting on that date, the applicants were first represented by Mr T. Sisák, and then by Ms   M.   Lichnerová, lawyers practising in Bratislava. 3.     The Slovak Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. 5.     On 7 August 2018 the applicants lodged an action for payment of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage under the State Liability Act on account of their father’s death in a police helicopter’s crash at a military airport. 6 .     On 27 January 2022 the Constitutional Court dismissed their constitutional complaint directed against the first-instance court as manifestly ill-founded, finding that the length of three years and three months was not excessive. When examining the length of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court acknowledged the importance of the case to the applicants. However, it also found the case to be factually and legally complex. This was because the lower court had to assess the applicability of an international agreement to the case, and there were two interveners on the defendant’s side. It further noted that some of the hearings had been adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that the applicants had contributed to the delays because they had requested two adjournments (file no. III. ÚS 26/2022). 7.     On 26 April 2022 the first-instance court stayed the proceedings at the applicants’ request due to a question referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling in proceedings on an almost identical issue, which were being held before a different court. The decision was upheld by the appellate court on 31 January 2023. 8.     It appears from the applicants’ submissions that on 10 November 2022 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ second constitutional complaint directed once again against the first-instance court as manifestly ill-founded. Essentially applying the same considerations as in its earlier decision, the Court held that, while there had been some delays in the proceedings before the first-instance court, the overall length could not be considered excessive (file no. III. ÚS 483/2022). 9.     It appears from the Government’s observations that on 24 November 2023 the proceedings before the first-instance court resumed and are currently pending. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 10.     The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings before the first-instance court had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. 11.     The Government argued that with regard to the period up to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 27 January 2022 the complaint was manifestly ill-founded. Referring to Lini s.r.o. v. Slovakia (dec.) [Committee], (no.   7206/22, 9 November 2023), they emphasised that the length of the proceedings before the first-instance court was influenced, inter alia , by the COVID-19 pandemic. In respect of the period following the latter Constitutional Court’s judgment, the Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, since they had not lodged a fresh constitutional complaint (the Government referred to Jesenská and Jesenský v.   Slovakia   (dec.), no.   1876/07 , 14 December 2010). 12.     Regarding the first part of the Government’s objection, the Court observes that the length of the proceedings might have been affected to some extent by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Court notes that in the present application, the case is of greater importance to the applicants; a point also acknowledged by the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 6 above). Furthermore, the impugned proceedings were not concluded quickly after the Constitutional Court’s decisions but are still pending. Lastly, neither the pandemic nor the parties have caused or requested as many adjournments as in the case referred to by the Government (contrast, Lini s.r.o. , cited above). The objection must accordingly be rejected. 13.     As concerns the Government’s plea of non-exhaustion, the Court firstly observes that the applicants lodged a second constitutional complaint, which was dismissed by the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 10   November 2022. The Court notes in this regard that repeated recourse to the domestic remedy is not required where the effects produced by the decision of the competent authority do not satisfy the criteria applied by the Court (see   Tomláková   v. Slovakia , no.   17709/04 , §§ 34-35, 5   December 2006). Given that the applicants have not obtained any redress despite having already lodged two constitutional complaints, the importance of the case to them and the fact that the proceedings are still pending, the Court is of the view that they could not be required to lodge yet another constitutional complaint. The Government’s non-exhaustion objection must therefore be rejected. 14.     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 Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, §   43, ECHR 2000-VII). 15.     In the leading case of Obluk v. Slovakia, no. 69484/01, 20   September 2006, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 16.     The impugned proceedings started on 7 August 2018 and have since been pending before the first-instance court. Although the period when the proceedings were stayed, i.e. from 26 April 2022 until 24 November 2023, cannot be attributed to the first-instance court (see Maxian and Maxianova v.   Slovakia (dec.), no. 10816/12, § 32, 13 December 2016), the proceedings have nevertheless lasted more than five years before one instance. 17.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument, including the applicants’ contribution to the delays, capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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. 18.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 19.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Obluk, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table; (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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 October 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Frédéric Krenc   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) Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per household (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2] 32769/22 28/06/2022 Household Andrea LACKOVÁ 1994   Radovan LACKO 1992   Monika Lichnerová Bratislava 07/08/2018 24/11/2023   26/04/2022 pending   More than 5 years, 3   months and 2 days   1 level of jurisdiction     Constitutional Court: III. US 26/2022 and III. US 483/2022   0 2,300 250     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.