CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 juin 2012

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s504DB88A { font-family:Arial; color:#999999 } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF2965512 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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. 153 June 2012 Ištván and Ištvánová v. Slovakia - 30189/07 Judgment 12.6.2012 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Constitutional remedy available only after prior use of ineffective remedy: preliminary objection dismissed   Facts – In their application to the European Court, the applicants complained of the length of civil proceedings. The Government contended that they had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as, although they had made a complaint under Article   127 of the Constitution, this had been rejected by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that they had not afforded the district court concerned adequate opportunity to remedy the situation under the Courts Act. Law – Article 35 § 1 ( exhaustion of domestic remedies ): The remedy established under Article   127 of the Constitution was in general considered a remedy requiring exhaustion for the purposes of Article 35 §   1 of the Convention in length-of-proceedings cases and offered redress of both a preventive and a compensatory nature. However, the ultimate effect for an applicant might change when the availability of redress under that provision became dependent on his first lodging a complaint with the president of the court under the Courts Act. Such a complaint did not give rise to compensation and was comparable to a similar type of complaint that could be made under the State Administration of Courts Act, which had been found not to be an effective remedy. Furthermore, there were inconsistencies in the Constitutional Court’s case-law regarding the period that had to elapse before a constitutional complaint could be made. The applicants’ situation regarding the exhaustion of remedies before the Constitutional Court had thus depended on a number of variables without reliable guidance or a predictable outcome. Such a situation could not be considered compatible with the principle of legal certainty. Conclusion : preliminary objection dismissed (fives votes to two). Article 6 § 1: The period to be taken into consideration had lasted approximately six years and five months for two levels of jurisdiction and was excessive. Conclusion : violation (five votes to two). The Court also found a violation of Article   13 in conjunction with Article 6 §   1. Article 41: EUR 3,250 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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