CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 novembre 2025

.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 } .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 } .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. 54110/22 Anton MAGÁT against Slovakia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20   November 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Frédéric Krenc , President ,   Davor Derenčinović,   Alain Chablais , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7   November 2022, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings regarding the dissolution of property after divorce were communicated to the Slovak Government (“the Government”). The proceedings started on 24 March 2006 and after several rounds before the first-instance and appellate courts the final decision was issued on 15   February 2023 when the appellate court overturned the first ‑ instance court’s decision and decided on the merits. It appears from the applicant’s submission that his and his ex ‑ wife’s appeals on points of law were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 27 June 2024. In the course of the proceedings before the first-instance, and appellate courts the applicant lodged five constitutional complaints and was awarded financial compensation in the total amount of 4,000 euros (EUR), by the Constitutional Court’s judgments of 10 September 2014 (file no.   I.   ÚS   355/2014), 4 September 2016 (file no. I.   ÚS   401/2016), 17 June 2020   (file no. I.   ÚS   48/2020) and finally by a judgment of 17 August 2022 (file no. I. ÚS 276/2022). In these judgments, the Constitutional Court referred, inter alia , to the applicant’s significant contribution to the length of the proceedings, such as   the applicant’s lack of cooperation with the court ‑ appointed expert, for which a disciplinary fine had been imposed on him, his numerous unfounded procedural requests and appeals, as well as the parties’ requests for expert evaluation of objects of small value purchased many years ago. On 10 November 2011 the Court rejected a previous application lodged by the applicant regarding the same civil proceedings that are the subject matter of this application as an abuse of the right of individual application because the applicant had failed to inform the Court of two Constitutional Court’s judgments that had awarded him financial compensation (see Magát v.   Slovakia (dec.) [Committee], no. 28368/19, 10 November 2021). In its most recent judgment of 17 August 2022, the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional complaint in relation to the first ‑ instance court, noting that since 23 October 2020, the case had been pending before the appellate court and therefore the first-instance court could not have violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see Mazurek v. Slovakia (dec.) , no. 16970/05, 3 March 2009). Regarding the proceedings before the appellate court, the Constitutional Court found that their length was excessive and awarded the applicant financial compensation.   THE LAW In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicant’s complaints about the excessive length of the proceedings are inadmissible. In particular, the Court notes that the period from 24 March 2006 until 23   October 2020 was the subject matter of the Court’s decision of 10   November 2021 that declared the applicant’s complaint an abuse of the right of individual application. Therefore, as far as that period is concerned, this part of the application is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court and the applicant has not submitted any “relevant new information” in relation to that complaint (see, mutatis mutandis , Kezer and others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 58058/00, 5 October 2004). Moreover, while mindful of the overall duration of the proceedings, the Court observes that, despite the applicant’s considerable contribution to their length, he was awarded compensation in the total amount of EUR 4,000 at the domestic level. In light of these circumstances, the Court considers that the compensation may be regarded as addressing the matter appropriately (see   Scordino   v.   Italy   (no. 1)   [GC], no. 36813/97, §§   205-06 and 214-15, ECHR 2006 ‑ V). Turning to the period following the Court’s decision of 10 November 2021, the Court notes that the impugned proceedings were pending before the appellate court from 23 October 2020 when the case was transferred to it until 15 February 2023, when it adopted the judgment. The proceedings thus lasted around two years and three months at one level of jurisdiction. Despite certain delays imputable to the appellate court, the length of the proceedings before it cannot be considered contrary to the reasonable time requirement as laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Vanek v. Slovakia , no. 53363/99, §§ 28-29, 29 November 2005). The Court finds, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto and that the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and 35 of the Convention have not been met. Accordingly, this application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 (a)   and   4 of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 December 2025.     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   Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Domestic court File number Domestic award (in euros) 54110/22 07/11/2022 Anton MAGÁT 1957   24/03/2006   15/02/2023   16 years and 10   months and 23 days     2 levels of jurisdiction   Constitutional Court: I. ÚS 355/2014 (JS 1,500 Eur) Constitutional Court: I. ÚS 401/2016 (JS 1,000 Eur), Constitutional Court: III. ÚS 490/2018 (MIF), Constitutional Court: I. ÚS 48/2020 (JS 500 Eur), Constitutional Court: I. ÚS 76/2022 (JS 1,000 Eur)   4,000