CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 septembre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 89 September 2006 Kalajzic v. Croatia (dec.) - 15382/04 Decision 28.9.2006 [Section I] Article 34 Victim Sufficient amount of award made in the context of a compensatory remedy available to victims of excessively lengthy proceedings: inadmissible   Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Sufficient amount of award made in the context of a compensatory remedy available to victims of excessively lengthy proceedings: inadmissible   In 1991 the applicant instituted civil proceedings challenging his dismissal and seeking reinstatement, compensation of salary and lost earnings. Following two remittals, the Municipal Court ordered the applicant’s reinstatement in 1997. The proceedings terminated in 2002 by the decision of the Supreme Court. As regards the compensation for salary and loss of earnings, the final and enforceable judgment in this respect wad rendered in 2005. In 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. In 2005 the Constitutional Court found that his right to a determination of his civil claim within a reasonable time had been violated and awarded him a sum equivalent to 1,130 EUR as just satisfaction. The Court recalled that an applicant’s status as a “victim” within the meaning of Article   34 depended on whether the domestic authorities had acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the alleged infringement of the Convention and, if necessary, provided appropriate redress. The Court observed that the acknowledgment by the Constitutional Court of a violation of the applicant’s right to have his claim decided within reasonable time satisfied the first of these two conditions. The Court further noted that the compensation granted to the applicant by the Constitutional Court had been lower compared with the sums awarded by the European Court for comparable delays. Whether the amount awarded could be regarded as reasonable fell to be assessed in the light of all the circumstances of the case. These included not merely the duration of the proceedings in the specific case but the value of the award judged in the light of the standard of living in the State concerned, and the fact that under the national system compensation would in general be awarded and paid more promptly than would be the case if the matter fell to be decided by the Court. In the light of the material in the file and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the sum awarded to the applicant could be considered sufficient and that the Constitutional Court’s decision had been consistent with the European Court’s case-law. The Court therefore concluded that the applicant could no longer claim to   be   a   “victim” within the meaning of Article   34 of the alleged violation of his right to a   hearing within a   reasonable time: manifestly ill-founded . See also: Case-Law Information Note No. 85, at p. 13 ( Scordino v. Italy , no. 36813/97 and Cocchiarella v. Italy , no. 64886/01 – violation).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes