CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juin 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 2 June 2017   THIRD SECTION Applications nos 51894/14 and 52073/14 framipek s.r.o. against Slovakia and AGRORACIO Senica a.s. against Slovakia lodged on 13 July 2014 and 15 July 2014 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS The first applicant, framipek s.r.o. is a limited liability company with its registered office in Šenkvice. The second applicant, AGRORACIO Senica, a.s. is a joint stock company with its registered office in Senica Čáčov. Both applicants are represented before the Court by Mr B. Fridrich, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. In 2000, both applicants concluded business contracts with another company B. On that basis they provided the latter company a sum of money. However, the company B. failed to perform the contract. On 18 October 2002 criminal proceedings were brought against an unknown person. Such a person, acting in the name of the company B., had concluded contracts with at least fifty-two businesses, had received sums of money from them but failed to perform such a contract. Thus, those businesses had suffered the equivalent of some 390,000 euros worth of damage. Both applicants lodged their civil-party claims for damages in the context of the above-mentioned criminal proceedings with the Banská Bystrica Regional Police Directorate ( Krajské riaditeľstvo Policajného zboru, Úrad justičnej polície v   Banskej Bystrici ) at the pre-trial stage. They both provided a statement to an investigator, in which they specified the defendants, the legal basis for their claim and the amount. The first applicant made such a claim on 6   November 2002 and the second applicant on 29 May 2003. On 29 December 2008 the criminal proceedings were discontinued on the ground that it did not concern a criminal offence. However, that decision was overturned by the Prosecutor General following an application lodged by some of the aggrieved parties, including the second applicant. Subsequently, the investigation continued, during which documentary evidence was secured, witness statements obtained and bank account statements and other correspondence attached to the case file. On 7 December 2009 the charges were brought against two individuals for a criminal offence of embezzlement. Later, that decision was quashed and remitted to the investigator for further examination. On 28   February 2013, the Bratislava I Police District Department ( Okresné riaditeľstvo Policajného zboru v Bratislave I ) discontinued the criminal proceedings again since there was no case to answer. Both applicants challenged the discontinuation of the proceedings before the Bratislava Regional Prosecutor’s Office unsuccessfully. The first applicant’s interlocutory appeal was unfounded and the second applicant’s interlocutory appeal was lodged out of time. In October 2013 both applicants lodged their complaints with the Constitutional Court under Article 127 of the Constitution, contesting the length of the proceedings before the District and the Regional Directorates in so far as they concerned their third-party claims for damages. On 12 December 2013 the Constitutional Court (file nos. II. ÚS 660/2013 and II. ÚS 661/2013 respectively) rejected both complaints noting that an aggrieved party claiming damages in the criminal proceedings only benefited from the right to a hearing within a reasonable time under Article   6 after a charge had been brought against a specific person. In that regard, the Constitutional Court observed that no charges against a specific person had been brought at the time of the constitutional complaint. Therefore, the applicants did not benefit from the constitutional guarantees relied on. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain that the length of the proceedings on their third ‑ party claim for damages attached to the criminal proceedings was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement provided for in Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. They also allege a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in connection to their length-of-proceedings complaint. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicants’ claim for damages filed in the context of criminal proceedings determined “within a reasonable time” as required by Article   6   § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?