FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 57987/00 by Anna BEŇAČKOVÁ against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 November 2003 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr M. Fischbach , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr R. Maruste , Mr L. Garlicki , Mrs E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 May 2000,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Anna Beňačková, is a Slovakian national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows.

On 24 April 1990 the applicant brought civil proceedings before the Bratislava I District Court. She claimed compensation for a work-related injury. The proceedings are still pending at first instance.

On 21 November 2002 the applicant filed a complaint about the length of the proceedings to the Constitutional Court pursuant to Article 127 of the Constitution, as in force since 1 January 2002. She claimed, inter alia , 100,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) as just satisfaction.

On 9 April 2003 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s constitutional right to a hearing without undue delay. It granted the applicant SKK 100,000 [1] as just satisfaction noting that the District Court was obliged to pay that sum to the applicant within two months from the final effect of its decision.

The Constitutional Court held that it lacked temporal jurisdiction to formally examine the length of the proceedings prior to 15 February 1993 when the Constitutional Court Act had entered into force. It admitted that the case was complex to a certain extent and noted that no delays in the proceedings were imputable to the applicant. The Constitutional Court found that during the period under its consideration the District Court, by its conduct, had caused unjustified delays in the proceedings totalling more than six years.

Noting that more than twelve years had lapsed since the introduction of the proceedings and that there was still no decision on the merits of the case, the Constitutional Court ordered the Bratislava I District Court to proceed with it without unnecessary delays.

The Bratislava I District Court paid the sum due to the applicant in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s finding.

A hearing in the case was scheduled for 3 October 2003.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 48(2) of the Constitution provides, inter alia , that every person has the right to have his or her case tried without unjustified delay.

As from 1 January 2002, the Constitution has been amended in that, inter alia , individuals and legal persons can complain about a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms pursuant to Article 127. Under this provision the Constitutional Court has the power, in case that it found a violation of Article 48 (2) of the Constitution, to order the authority concerned to proceed with the case without delay. It may also grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose constitutional right was violated as a result of excessive length of proceedings (for further details see, e.g., Andrášik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos. 57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01, 60226/00, 22 October 2002).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings concerning her claim for damages was excessive. She also alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that she had no effective remedy at her disposal in this respect. She pointed out, in particular, that the proceedings complained of were unlikely to end within a reasonable time despite the Constitutional Court’s finding, that the Constitutional Court lacked power to examine the overall length of the proceedings, and that the just satisfaction awarded to her was not sufficient.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings concerning her claim for damages. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the relevant part of which provides:

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

In view of the Constitutional Court’s finding of 9 April 2003, the question arises whether the applicant can still claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time. In this respect the Court recalls that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive the applicant of his or her of status as a ‘victim’ unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see the Amuur v. France judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36 and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI).

In the present case the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing without undue delay and provided for redress of both compensatory and preventive nature. The Court cannot attach decisive weight to the fact that the Constitutional Court could only examine the period after 15 February 1993 when the Constitutional Court Act had entered into force. In fact, the Court itself has temporal jurisdiction to entertain complaints against the Slovak Republic only to the extent that they concern facts subsequent to 18 March 1992, and the finding of 9 April 2003 indicates that the Constitutional Court took into account also the overall length of the proceedings in that it pointed out that more than twelve years had lapsed since the introduction of the proceedings and that no decision on the merits had been delivered.

As to the applicant’s argument that the just satisfaction afforded to her was insufficient, the Court has admitted earlier that clearly inadequate compensation granted by domestic authorities in similar cases may not remedy the violation of the Convention rights alleged (see Scordino v. Italy (dec.), no. 36813/97, 27 March 2003). However, such was not the case in the proceedings complained of as the sum afforded to the applicant was not disproportionately low in regard of the Court’s practice in similar cases. Furthermore, the just satisfaction granted to the applicant corresponded to the sum which she claimed in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

The Court therefore concludes that, as a result of the Constitutional Court’s finding of 9 April 2003, the applicant can no longer claim to be a ‘victim’ within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

2. The applicant further complained that she had no effective remedy at her disposal in respect of her complaint about the length of the proceedings. She relied on Article 13 of the Convention which provides:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

In view of the above considerations, and noting that the applicant can again seek redress before the Constitutional Court, pursuant to Article 127 of the Constitution, in case of further delays in the proceedings before the Bratislava I District Court, the Court finds that the applicant had and continues to have an effective remedy at her disposal as required by Article 13.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President

[1] The equivalent of approximately 2,430 euros.