CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 18 juillet 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFCD7D858 { margin-left:1.65pt; border:1.5pt double #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7C35CBBD { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s9A734C56 { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBF10AB1 { border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A08084E { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s4CCA2433 { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s2AB3D1C6 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sFB4D0E3C { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .s9B8DC3B3 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sCE97D62E { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sC18575F0 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sA6524EF { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s8E7C0AC9 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sAAECE211 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s284C023A { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9F2A5D62 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .sE7BA5DFB { font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super } .s5B629078 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:12pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s116BEA21 { font-size:8pt } Resolution ResDH(2005)67 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Jóri and 18 other cases against the Slovak Republic (see Appendix I) relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings and the right to an effective remedy   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 July 2005 at the 933rd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Jóri and 18 other cases (see details in Appendix I) transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the cases originated in applications against the Slovak Republic (see details in Appendix I) lodged with either the European Commission of Human Rights under former Article 25 or the European Court of Human Rights under Article 34 and that the European Court of Human Rights declared admissible the applicants' complaints relating to the excessive length of certain civil proceedings rights and, in the Číž case, also the complaint relating to the lack of an effective remedy to enforce the right to a trial within a reasonable time;   Recalling that the European Court subsequently held in all these cases that there had been violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of certain civil proceedings and that, in the case of Číž, there had also been a violation of Article 13 on account of the absence of an effective remedy at the national level, and awarded the applicants sums as just satisfaction (see Appendix I);   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the European Court's judgments, having regard to Slovak Republic's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by them;   Having satisfied itself that the Government of the Slovak Republic paid all the applicants the sums awarded by the European Court as just satisfaction (see details in Appendix I);   Having noted the individual measures taken by the authorities to grant the applicants redress for the violations found ( restitutio in integrum ), in particular by accelerating as far as possible those proceedings which were still pending after the findings of violations by the Court (see details in Appendix II);   Whereas during the examination of these cases by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state recalled that following the first findings of similar violations of the Convention, Slovakia has taken action to prevent new violations of this kind, in particular by raising courts' awareness and through administrative measures adopted by the presidents of several courts to improve their internal organisation (see Resolution DH(99)551 in the case of Preložník against the Slovak Republic, adopted on 8   October   1999);   Considering that following the finding of new violations here at issue, the authorities have taken further and more comprehensive measures to strengthen the protection of the right to a trial within a reasonable time; these measures are summarised in Appendix II to this resolution;   Welcoming in particular the constitutional reform establishing, in conformity with the Convention's requirements, an effective remedy at the national level making it possible to complain of the excessive length of judicial proceedings;   Welcoming furthermore the direct effect increasingly granted to the European Court's judgments by the Slovak Constitutional Court and other courts and stressing the importance of these developments for effective prevention of new violations of the Convention,   Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of the Slovak Republic, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases.     Appendix I to Resolution ResDH(2005)67 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Jóri and 18 other cases against the Slovak Republic (see Appendix I) relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings and the right to an effective remedy     Details of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants     Cases Date of judgment Final on Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Payment on Jóri Eva 34753/97   09/11/2000 09/02/2001 150 000 Slovak korunas - 14/02/2001 Matoušková Helena 39752/98   12/11/2002 12/02/2003 3 000 euros [1] - 16/05/2003 Gajdúšek š tefan 40058/98   18/12/2001 18/03/2002 100 000 Slovak korunas 10 253 Slovak korunas   25/04/2002 Stančiak Dušan 40345/98   12/04/2001 12/07/2001 80 000 Slovak korunas - 05/06/2001 Molnárová Dagmar and Kochanová Alžbeta 44965/98   04/03/2003 04/06/2003 2 400 euros 1 200 euros 1 10/09/2003 + interest Havala Kazol 47804/99   12/11/2002 12/02/2003 3 500 euros 1 300 euros 1 16/05/2003 Nemec Jaroslav and others 48672/99   15/11/2001 15/02/2002 800 000 Slovak korunas 15 000 Slovak korunas 11/03/2002 Jamriška Ladislav 51559/99   14/10/2003 24/03/2004 1 500 euros 1 - 21/06/2004 Tomková Marcela 51646/99   13/07/2004 13/10/2004 2 500 euros 1 - 12/11/2004 D.K. 53372/99   06/05/2003 06/08/2003 3 000 euros 1 200 euros 1 06/11/2003 Sabol Ján and Sabolová Maria 54809/00   27/04/2004 27/07/2004 2 500 euros 1 200 euros 1 28/10/2004 (applicant waived interest in view of small amount) Chovančik Henrik 54996/00   17/06/2003 17/09/2003 6 000 euros 1 - 09/12/2003 Beńačková Anna 53376/99   17/06/2003 17/09/2003 4 000 euros 1 300 euros 1 09/12/2003 Slovák Marián 57983/00   08/04/2003 08/07/2003 3 500 euros 1 - 10/10/2003 (applicant waived interest in view of small amount)   Záborský Elemír and Šmáriková Edita 58172/00   16/12/2003 16/03/2004 5 000 euros 1 100 euros 1 27/05/2004 Trenčianský š tefan 62175/00   02/12/2003 02/03/2004 3 000 euros 1 100 euros 1 27/05/2004 Čiź Jozef 66142/01   14/10/2003 14/01/2004 2 500 euros 1 - 15/04/2004 (applicant waived interest in view of small amount)   Sika Valdimír 69145/01   24/06/2003 24/09/2003 2 500 euros 1 70 euros 1 19/12/2003 Bóna Peter 72022/01   17/06/2003 17/09/2003 2 000 euros 1 700 euros 1 19/12/2003 (applicant waived interest in view of small amount)       Appendix II to Resolution ResDH(2005)67 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Jóri and 18 other cases against the Slovak Republic (see Appendix I) relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings and the right to an effective remedy   Information provided by the Government of the Slovak Republic during the examination of the Jóri case and 18 other cases concerning the excessive length of certain civil proceedings by the Committee of Ministers     I. As regards individual measures   In all these cases, except from the cases of Matoušková, Gajdúšek, Havala and Nemec and others, the domestic proceedings impugned by the European Court in the judgments have ended. As regards the four cases mentioned above, the competent domestic courts have given priority to the proceedings, still pending, to accelerate them, taking account of the violations found by the European Court in these cases.   II. As regards general measures   The government recalled that a number of measures have been taken following the first finding of violations of the Convention due to the excessive length of civil proceedings (see Preloznik v. the Slovak Republic, Final Resolution DH(99)551). Since then, the government has been continuing to adopt reforms so as to speed up proceedings, thus remedying the problem highlighted by a number of the European Court's judgments.   1) Constitutional reform introducing an effective remedy against the excessive length of proceedings   As from 1 January 2002, the Constitution of the Slovak Republic was amended to allow individuals and legal persons to complain about alleged violations of their right to have their cases tried without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court has also been given the power to order the competent authority to proceed with a given case without delay and to grant adequate pecuniary compensation in case of excessive length of judicial proceedings (Article 127, as amended in 2002).   The European Court has already found on several occasions that, having regard to the Constitutional Court's practice in this field (see below), this new constitutional complaint represents an effective remedy in the sense of Article 13 of the Convention (see decisions on the admissibility in the case of Hody, of 06/05/2003, Paška, of 03/12/2002 and Andrášik and others, of 22/10/2002).   2) Direct effect of the Convention in Slovak law   The government recalls that the Convention, ratified on 18 March 1992 by the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, to which the Slovak Republic is one of the successor states, is part of the Slovak domestic legal order and its provisions take priority over provisions of domestic legislation (Article 7, paragraphs 4 and 5 and Article 154c of the Slovak Constitution). Since 1998, the government has provided the Committee with examples of the Slovak Constitutional Court granting direct effect to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (see Kadubec v. the Slovak Republic, Final Resolution (99)553).   Following the constitutional reform of 2002, the European Court's judgments were also granted direct effect in cases of excessive length of judicial proceedings. The Constitutional Court thus found several violations of plaintiffs' rights under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution on account of the excessive length of the civil proceedings and awarded compensation for delays (see, for example, decisions No. III. ÚS 17/02-35 of 30 May 2002 and No. I. ÚS 15/02 of 10 July 2002). The Constitutional Court examined the length of these proceedings in the light of the criteria established by the European Court's case-law, namely the complexity of the matter and the conduct of the parties. The government trusts that the Constitutional Court will continue to give direct effect to the European Court's judgments, thus preventing new violations of the Convention.   Other domestic courts also increasingly apply the European Court's judgments in different cases (see in particular the Supreme Court's decisions concerning the right to liberty and security, Nos. Ntv I - 19/02 and Ntv I - 20/02 of 10 January 2003).   The government strongly encourages these developments, which effectively contribute to fulfilment of the Slovak Republic's obligation to abide by the European Court's judgments.   3) Legislative and other measures to ensure the reasonable length of judicial proceedings   a) Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure   A new Law (No. o 501/2001 Coll.) amending the Code of Civil Procedure, which entered into force on 1 January 2002, amended the rules of civil procedure, with a view in particular to reducing courts' workload and accelerating the judicial proceedings.   In particular, it removes the inquisitorial principle (“substantive truth”) and establishes the principle of the “adversarial nature” of civil proceedings. Thus, the burden of proof lies exclusively with the parties who, in principle, are allowed to adduce evidence or facts only in first-instance proceedings.   This Act also confirms the general first-instance jurisdiction of district courts. The competence of the Court of Appeal to deal with cases as a first-instance court is thus substantially reduced. As a result, the proceedings before the Supreme Court acting as a court of appeal have been limited and now its main competence is to deal with cases concerning appeals on points of law. Finally, the new Act simplifies and shortens the procedure of notification of documents to the parties.   b) Amendments to the Bankruptcy and settlement Act   Act N o 238/2000 Coll ., which entered into force on 1 August 2000, amended Act No. o 328/1991 Coll. on bankruptcy and settlement so as to prevent the increasing delays in bankruptcy proceedings. This amendment increased the effectiveness of bankruptcy proceedings, strengthening the status of the creditors' committee in these proceedings and accelerating their conclusion.     c) Administrative measures to improve the organisation and management of courts   The government has adopted several administrative measures to ensure reasonable length of judicial proceedings. In particular, the function of court senior clerks was introduced in 2003 by the Act on Court Officers, which entered into force on 1 January 2004, with a view to delegating to administrative staff various administrative tasks which do not require judges' involvement.   Furthermore, the Slovak authorities have examined measures to improve the efficiency and the facilities of the courts, such as training and specialisation of judges, increase in their numbers, a new system of professional evaluation, territorial reorganisation of courts and computerisation of judicial services. As regards this last measure, a pilot project named “Court Management” is progressively being implemented in all district and regional courts in the Slovak Republic. It is mainly focused on providing courts with computers and appropriate software, on staff training and on case management. When this project first entered into operation in Banská Bystrica District Court it resulted in significant decrease in the length of proceedings due to a considerable saving of time previously spent on administrative work. This project was progressively implemented in all district and regional courts during 2002-2004.   d) Strengthening judges' civil and administrative liability   - The Judges and Lay Judges Act No. o 385/2000 Coll. which entered into force on 1 January 2001, aims, inter alia, at preventing unreasonable delays in judicial proceedings by strengthening the civil as well as disciplinary liability of judges (Sections 104-105, 116§1, 117§§1,3 and 4).   As regards civil liability, the Act provides for a right of recourse of the state against the judge responsible, for the damages resulting from wrongful judgment or from wrongful conduct. As to violations of the Convention, the Instruction of the Minister of Justice of 31 August 1999 (Article III) provides that, after payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court, the competent services of the Ministry of Justice may take proceedings against the responsible official.   As regards disciplinary liability, the Act provides that the disciplinary court may hold a judge liable when, inter alia, he displays conduct that raises reasonable doubts about the efforts to settle the case fairly and without undue delay (Section 116, paragraph 1). According to the instructions issued for the application this Act, the president of the court may take action, in particular, if a judge does not use the pre-scheduled days in which the hearings are to be held, if he does not deal with the cases in the due time, or if he does not proceed to any relevant act within a three months period.   4) Publication and dissemination of the judgments   With a view to facilitating the development of the direct effect of the Convention and the case-law of the European Court in Slovak law, the Minister of Justice sent the judgments of the European Court in the Jóri and Stančiak cases, translated into Slovak and accompanied by a circular letter, to all Presidents of general courts in Slovakia, inviting them to take all necessary measures to avoid similar violations in future. Moreover, the judgments in the cases of Nemec and others, Chovančik, Čiź, Sika and Bóna have been transmitted to the Presidents of the courts directly concerned in order to draw their attention to the conclusions of the European Court related to the violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention.   The judgments in all these cases were published in Justičná revue (Nos. 2 and 6-7 of 2001, 1 and 2 of 2002, 2, 4, 6-7, 10 and 12 of 2003 and 2, 4, 6-7 and 10 of 2004).   III. Conclusion   The Government believes that the measures set out above will prevent new, similar violations of the right to a trial within reasonable time and of the right to an effective domestic remedy against the excessive length of judicial proceedings. The Government therefore considers that the Slovak Republic has fulfilled its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention with regard to the present judgments. [1] To be converted into Slovak korunas at the rate applicable on the date of settlement