CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 novembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } THIRD SECTION Application no. 32133/10 Martin BUZINGER against Slovakia lodged on 27 May 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Martin Buzinger, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Bratislava. He is represented before the Court by Ms   M.   Lukačovičová, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Proceedings concerning the applicant’s criminal complaint On 2 September 2002 the applicant filed a criminal complaint. He indicated that movable property of which he was the owner or co-owner had been taken away from the premises of his law office. The applicant suspected a different lawyer who practised in the same premises of having taken the items. At the same time the applicant submitted a claim for damages. On 14 February 2007 a public prosecutor of the Bratislava I District Prosecutor’s Office admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings. Similarly, on 7 December 2007 a public prosecutor of the Bratislava Regional Prosecutor’s Office admitted that the case had not been dealt with in an appropriate manner. On 2 October 2008 the applicant was notified of the police investigator’s decision of 5 August 2008 to discontinue the proceedings. On 10 November 2008 a public prosecutor of the Bratislava I District Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the applicant’s complaint against that decision. On 15 May 2009 a public prosecutor of the Bratislava Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that she had established no reason for disagreeing with the lower authorities’ decisions. On 5 October 2009 a public prosecutor of the General Prosecutor’s Office, upon the applicant’s petition, instructed the prosecuting authorities to instigate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence of embezzlement and to carry out further investigation into the case. 2.     Proceedings before the Constitutional Court On 15 July 2009 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint for which he submitted further details on 18 August and 12 October 2009. The applicant alleged that his right to judicial protection and to have the case determined within a reasonable time had been breached. On 28 October 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint. With reference to Article 46 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and unspecified practice of ordinary courts, it held that a claim for compensation can be filed in the context of criminal proceedings exclusively against a   specific person, i.e. once a person has been accused of an offence at the earliest. As no person had been accused in the proceedings complained of, the applicant lacked standing to complain about delays in those proceedings. As to the alleged breached of the applicant’s right to judicial protection in the context of the proceedings before the police investigator, the Bratislava I District Prosecutor’s Office and the Bratislava Regional Prosecutor’s Office, the Constitutional Court noted that the applicant had a remedy at his disposal, namely a petition to the General Prosecutor’s Office of which he had availed himself. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant domestic law and practice is set out in Loveček and Others v. Slovakia , no. 11301/03, §§ 33-46, 21 December 2010 or Bíro v. Slovakia (no. 2) , no. 57678/00, §§ 26-35, 27 June 2006. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that (i) prosecuting authorities failed to proceed with the case in an appropriate manner and that they caused delays as a result of which the offence in issue became statute-barred and (ii) he was unable to obtain redress before the Constitutional Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the criminal proceedings in the context of which the applicant submitted a claim for damages? In particular, on which case-law relies and to what extent is relevant the Constitutional Court’s argument that the applicant lacked standing to file a valid claim for compensation prior to formal instigation of criminal prosecution of a specific person (see also Loveček and Others v. Slovakia , no. 11301/03, §§ 44-45 and 51-53, 21 December 2010, with further references and Pfleger v.   the Czech Republic , no.   58116/00, § 39, 27 July 2004, with further reference)?   2. If Article 6 § 1 was applicable, was the length of those proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the proceedings, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?