EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 29024/95

P.S.

against

the Slovak Republic

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 21 October 1998)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-5) 1

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 6-29) 2

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 30-58)              5

A. Complaints declared admissible

(para. 30) 5

B. Points at issue

(para. 31) 5

C. As regards compliance of the proceedings concerning the action of 20 December 1990 with Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

(paras. 32-48)              5

CONCLUSION

(para. 48) 7

D. As regards compliance of the proceedings concerning the action of 27 May 1993 with Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

(paras. 49-56)              7

CONCLUSION

(para. 56) 8

E. Recapitulation

(paras. 57-58)              8

APPENDIX (I): PARTIAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION              9

APPENDIX (II): FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                                                  ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION                                                     13

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The present Report concerns Application No. 29024/95 introduced on 25 April 1995 against the Slovak Republic and registered on 31 October 1995.

The applicant is a Slovak national born in 1950 and resident in Bratislava.

The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr R. Fico .

2. The application was communicated to the Government on 21 May 1997.  Following an exchange of written observations, the complaints relating to the length of the two sets of civil proceedings brought by the applicant (Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention) were declared admissible on 16 April 1998.  The decisions on admissibility are appended to this Report.

3. Having noted that there is no basis upon which a friendly settlement within the meaning of Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention can be secured, the Commission (Second Chamber), after deliberating, adopted this Report on 21 October 1998 in accordance with Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, the following members being present:

MM J.-C. GEUS, President

M.A. NOWICKI

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM F. MARTINEZ

I. CABRAL BARRETO

D. ŠVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIŪNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

4. In this Report the Commission states its opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a violation of the Convention by the Slovak Republic.

5. The text of the Report is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. Proceedings concerning the action of 20 December 1990

6. A former partner failed to pay the applicant for publication of drawings in which the latter has copyright.

7. On 20 December 1990 the applicant lodged a civil action against the partner with the Bratislava 1 District Court ( Obvodný súd ).

8. On 24 January and 16 May 1991 the applicant requested provisional measures against which the defendant appealed.  The first hearing in the case was to take place on 24 September 1991 but was adjourned to 15 October 1991 due to the defendant's illness.  From 15 October 1991 to 17 March 1992 five hearings were held (of which one was adjourned due to the absence of witnesses) during which certain witnesses and the parties were heard.

9. Hearings were held on 24 April, 11 August and 16 October 1992, of which one was adjourned due to a new judge being assigned. From 16 October 1992 to 12 October 1993 no hearings were held, during which time the applicant extended his claim but refused to pay the additional filing fee. On 30 December 1992 the Bratislava City Court ( Mestský súd ) confirmed, on appeal, the applicant's obligation to pay a filing fee.

10. From 12 October 1993 to 22 September 1994 six hearings were scheduled and adjourned due to failure to attend by a witness, the defendant or both parties or in order to obtain further documents.

11. In reply to the applicant's complaints the President of the Bratislava 1 District Court admitted, on 7 February and 30 May 1994,  that there had been delays in the proceedings and apologised to the applicant.

12. The Bratislava 1 District Court dismissed the action on 27 September 1994.

13. The applicant appealed on 21 November 1994.  On 2 February 1995 the President of the Bratislava 1 District Court informed the applicant that his appeal had been sent to the defendant on 10 January 1995 and that the first instance court was overburdened with cases.

14. On 28 April 1995 the Bratislava City Court quashed the judgment of 27 September 1994 and sent the case back to the Bratislava 1 District Court.

15. On 10 April 1995 the applicant complained of delays in the proceedings to the Constitutional Court ( Ústavný súd ) by way of a petition (" podnet ") under Article 130 para. 3 of the Constitution.  The Constitutional Court declared the applicant's petition admissible on 17 August 1995.  The applicant was requested to appoint a lawyer as required by Section 22 of the Constitutional Court Act.  On 28 August and 11 September 1995 the applicant requested that, for financial reasons, the hearing in his case should be held in Bratislava and not at the seat of the Constitutional Court in Košice .

16. On 25 October 1995 the Constitutional Court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had failed to appoint a lawyer within the extended time-limit.  The Constitutional Court further pointed out that under Slovak law the applicant was not entitled to request that the hearing should be held in Bratislava. The file was returned to the Bratislava 1 District Court on 2 October 1995.

17. On 24 November and 11 December 1995 the applicant complained of further delays in the proceedings to the Vice-President and President of the Bratislava 1 District Court respectively.

18. Between 15 February 1996 and 21 January 1997 eleven hearings were held and adjourned for various reasons, three times because of the absence of the judge and only once for reasons on the part of the applicant. On 27 June 1996 the judge imposed a fine of SK 3,000 on the defendant and her lawyer.

19. On 3 March 1997 the applicant received the Bratislava 1 District Court's ( Okresný súd ) judgment of 21 January 1997, by which the court ordered the defendant to pay SK 193,400 to the applicant and rejected the remainder of the action.  On 11 March and 26 March 1997 the applicant appealed against the judgment.  On 12 March 1997 the defendant also appealed against the judgment.

20. On 23 January 1998 the Bratislava Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) quashed the judgment of 21 January 1997 and sent the case back to the Bratislava 1 District Court.

21. On 23 April 1998 the Bratislava 1 District Court ordered that the defendant should pay SK 193,400 to the applicant and dismissed the remainder of the action. 

22. On 23 July 1998 the President of the Bratislava Regional Court informed the applicant that her court could not proceed with the appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment as the Bratislava 1 District Court had not yet submitted the case-file to it.

B. Proceedings concerning the action of 27 May 1993

23. On 27 May 1993 the applicant lodged a separate civil action (for the compensation for the damage caused) with the Bratislava 1 District Court.  He sued two banks which had allowed his former partner to use money which also belonged to the applicant.

24. On 10 May 1994 the action was transmitted to the Bratislava City Court as the Bratislava 1 District Court on 25 March 1994 had ruled that it had no jurisdiction (following a new Commercial Code in force as of 1 January 1992) and that the matter was to be considered as a commercial dispute.

25. On 21 June 1994 the applicant filed a petition to be exempted from payment of the filing fee which was refused on 12 September 1994. The applicant appealed and the Supreme Court ( Najvyšší súd ) granted exemption in full to the applicant on 15 December 1994.

26. On 27 November 1995 a judge of the Bratislava City Court informed the applicant that at that moment the court was examining cases which had been introduced in 1992.

27. The applicant's claim was heard (on 13 December 1996 and 29 January 1997) and refused by the Bratislava City Court on 30 January 1997.

28. On 17 February 1997 the applicant appealed against a part of the judgment and claimed, inter alia , that his case was governed by the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and not by the Commercial Code. The case was referred to the Supreme Court to decide on the appeal on 29 May 1997.

29. On 4 September 1997 the Supreme Court upheld the first instance judgment.  It held that the case was to be examined under the Commercial Code and found that the right claimed by the applicant had become statute-barred on 23 August 1991.

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaints declared admissible

30. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaints that his above two cases were not heard within a reasonable time.

B. Points at issue

31. The points at issue are whether the length of the two sets of proceedings complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement referred to in Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

C. As regards compliance of the proceedings concerning the action of 20 December 1990 with Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

32. The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention provides as follows :

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ..."

33. The proceedings in question concern the applicant's civil action against his former partner who failed to pay him for publication of drawings in which the applicant has copyright.  The purpose of the proceedings is to obtain a decision in a dispute over "civil rights and obligations", and they accordingly fall within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

34. The Commission notes that although the proceedings started on 20 December 1990, it can only examine them as from 18 March 1992 when the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic ratified the Convention and recognised the right of individual application.  However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after 18 March 1992, account must be taken of the state of the proceedings at that time (see Eur. Court HR, Baggetta v. Italy judgment of 25 June 1978, Series A no. 119, p. 32, para. 20).

35. The proceedings are still pending.  Thus, the period to be considered has exceeded six years and seven months.

36. The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and with the help of the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court HR, Vernillo v. Italy judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30).

37. The applicant submits that the length of the proceedings has exceeded any notion of reasonableness and that it is mainly due to the heavy workload of the courts dealing with his case.

38. The Government contend that the length of the proceedings is mainly due to the applicant's conduct and the complexity of the case.

39. The Commission notes that in the present case the courts concerned are called upon to decide on the applicant's claim for royalties which a former partner allegedly owes to him.  In the Commission's view, the case is not particularly complex.

40. The Commission finds that the applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings in that, in particular, he modified his claim and asked for exemption from the obligation to pay the additional filing fee.  However, in the Commission's view the applicant's conduct alone cannot explain the overall length of the proceedings.

41. In respect of the conduct of the Slovak courts, the Commission notes that after the Bratislava City Court had confirmed, on 30 December 1992, the applicant's obligation to pay an additional filing fee, the Bratislava 1 District Court held the first hearing in the case on 12 October 1993, i.e. after more than nine months.

42. The Commission further notes that more than four months elapsed between 2 October 1995, when the Constitutional Court returned the file to the Bratislava 1 District Court, and 15 February 1996, when the latter court resumed its proceedings in the case.

43. In the Commission's view, in the period between 15 February 1996 and 21 January 1997, despite the fact that several procedural acts were taken and hearings adjourned, delays can generally be attributed to the Bratislava 1 District Court.

44. Finally, the Commission also notes that the Bratislava 1 District Court's judgment of 21 January 1997 was served on the applicant on 3 March 1997, and that the Bratislava Regional Court decided on the appeal against that judgment lodged by the applicant and the defendant on 11 and 12 March 1997 respectively on 23 January 1998, i.e. after more than ten months.

45. In view of these circumstances, the Commission considers that it cannot be said that the courts were diligent in the conduct of the case.  They are therefore mainly responsible for the overall length of the proceedings.

46. The Commission reaffirms that it is for Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can guarantee the right of everyone to obtain a final decision on disputes relating to civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time (see Eur. Court HR, Vocaturo v. Italy judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 32, para. 17).

47. In the light of the criteria established by case-law and having regard to the circumstances of the present case as well as to the state of the proceedings at 18 March 1992, the Commission considers that the length of the proceedings has been excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.

CONCLUSION

48. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention as a result of the length of the proceedings concerning the applicant's action of 20 December 1990.

D. As regards compliance of the proceedings concerning the action of 27 May 1993 with Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention             

49. The proceedings in question concerned the action for damages which the applicant had introduced against two banks.  Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's conclusion that the right in question was statute-barred, the Commission considers that the purpose of the proceedings was to obtain a decision in a dispute over "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Eur. Court HR, Neves e Silva v. Portugal judgment of 27 April 1989, Series A no. 153, p. 14, para. 37).

50. These proceedings, which began on 27 May 1993 and ended on 4 September 1997 by the Supreme Court's judgment, lasted four years, three months and eight days.

51. The applicant submits that the proceedings in question lasted unreasonably long.

52. The respondent Government admit that there were certain delays in the proceedings due mainly to the enormous load of commercial matters to be dealt with by the Slovak courts since the entry into force of the new Commercial Code in 1992.  They point out, without providing further details, that the Slovak authorities took measures with a view to resolving this problem and contend that the "reasonable time" requirement was not exceeded in the present case.

53. The Commission considers that the case was not complex, and that the applicant's conduct is not in itself sufficient to explain the length of the proceedings.

54. In respect of the conduct of the Slovak courts, the Commission notes that almost ten months elapsed between 27 May 1993, when the proceedings were brought, and 25 March 1994, when the Bratislava 1 District Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case.  Furthermore, there was a period of inactivity which was apparently due to the heavy workload of the Bratislava City Court between 15 December 1994 and 13 December 1996, when the City Court held the first hearing in the applicant's case.  In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the courts are mainly responsible for the overall length of the proceedings.

55. The Commission reaffirms its position set out in para. 46 above and considers, in the light of the criteria established by case-law and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, that the length of the proceedings in question was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.

CONCLUSION

56. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention as a result of the length of the proceedings concerning the applicant's action of 27 May 1993.

E. Recapitulation

57. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention as a result of the length of the proceedings concerning the applicant's action of 20 December 1990 (para. 48).

58. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention as a result of the length of the proceedings concerning the applicant's action of 27 May 1993 (para. 56).

   M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               J.-C. GEUS

      Secretary                                   President

to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber

  Second Chamber                      of the Second Chamber