FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 51548/99 by Jozefína BEŇAČKOVÁ against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) , sitting on 8 October 2002 as a Chamber composed of

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

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 July 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Jozefína Beňačková, is a Slovakian national, who was born in 1912 and lives in B ánovce nad Bebravou .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 28 November 1997 the applicant filed a claim for damages with the Topo ľč any District Court. She claimed compensation under the State Liability Act of 1969 on the ground that the sum of 3,091 Slovakian korunas (SKK) had been unlawfully withheld from her old-age pension between 20 February 1996 and 1 July 1997. The applicant relied on a decision of 30 April 1997, delivered by the Nitra Regional Court, according to which the decision to withhold a part of the applicant’s pension with a view to recovering a sum of money due by her had been erroneous. The applicant appointed her daughter to represent her in the proceedings.

On 25 February 1998 the Ministry of Justice proposed in writing that the court take relevant evidence and decide on its basis. On 11 March 1998 the applicant submitted further arguments to the District Court.

On 9 October 1998 the Topo ľč any District Court adjourned the case with a view to hearing a representative of the defendant and studying the case-file concerning the withholding of the sum in question.

On 22 December 1998 and on 16 April 1999 the president of the Topo ľč any District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaints about the length of the proceedings. The applicant was informed that the case could not be proceeded with as the relevant case-file was being examined by the Tren čín Regional Court in the context of a different set of proceedings. The applicant objected that her case could be proceeded with as she had submitted all relevant information and evidence.

On 13 October 1999 the president of the Topoľčany District Court informed the applicant that the examination of the case -file concerning the enforcement in question was necessary before proceeding with the applicant’s action, and that that case file was still with the Trenčín Regional Court.

On 25 February 2000 the Bratislava II District Court heard the representative of the defendant Ministry at the request of the Topo ľč any District Court. The representative of the defendant stated that the Ministry had no objection to the applicant’s claim being granted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the State Liability Act of 1969.

On 21 March 2000 the Topo ľčany District Court ordered the defendant to pay SKK 1,377 to the applicant in compensation for damage which she had suffered as a result of the above erroneous enforcement . The damages granted comprised the statutory default interest in respect of the sum which had been withheld between 20 February 1996 and 1 July 1997 and the expenses incurred by the applicant in the context of the enforcement. The court noted that the sum erroneously withheld had already been returned to the applicant.

The Topo ľčany District Court further granted SKK 381 to the applicant in compensation for her representative’s travelling costs and other expenses incurred in the context of the proceedings concerning her claim for damages. The District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation for the time which her representative had spent travelling to the court hearings . The decision stated , with reference to Regulation No. 240/1990, that such compensation was only payable to advocates . The judgment became final on 19 April 2000.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The State Liability Act of 1969

Section 1 (1) of Act No. 58/1969 on the liability of the State for damage caused by a State organ’s decision or by its erroneous official action (“the State Liability Act”) provides that the State is liable for damage caused by unlawful decisions delivered by a public authority in the context of, inter alia , civil proceedings.

In accordance with the courts’ practice, the State Liability Act does not permit granting compensation for damage of non-pecuniary nature with the exception of compensation for damage caused to a person’s health which is governed by Regulation No. 32/1965.

Regulation No. 240/1990

Regulation No. 240/1990 governs the payment of advocates ’ fees and expenses .

Section 20 provides that advocates are entitled to compensation for travel time outside the place of their residence in the context of representing their clients.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that her right to a fair hearing was violated in that under Slovakian law she could not obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the erroneous enforcement of a sum, and that her representative in the proceedings concerning her claim for damages was not compensated for the time which she had spent travelling to the Topo ľčany District Court. The applicant further complains that the proceedings concerning her claim for damages lasted an unreasonably long time. She alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

2. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complains that she had no effective remedy at her disposal as regards her complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that her right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time was violated in the proceedings concerning her claim for damages. She alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the relevant part of which reads as follows:

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

a) As regards the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings, the Court notes that they lasted  two years,  three months and twenty-three days at one level of jurisdiction. The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established by its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (see, e.g., the Styranowski v. Poland judgment of 30 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, p. 3376, § 47), and having regard to all the material in its possession, that the overall length of the proceedings was not contrary to the requirements laid down in Article 6 § 1.

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

b) To the extent that the applicant complains that her right to a fair hearing was violated in that she could not obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the erroneous decision to recover a sum of money, and that her representative was not compensated for the time which she had spent travelling to the Topo ľčany District Court, the Court recalls that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides procedural guarantees in the context of the determination of, inter alia , civil rights and obligations recognised in the domestic legal system. However, this provision neither guarantees any particular content for civil rights and obligations nor is it aimed at creating new substantive rights which have no basis in domestic law (see, e.g., the W. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 121-A, p. 32, § 73 and Krickl v. Austria, application no. 21752/93, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, Decisions and Reports 89, p. 5).

As the applicant’s above claims had no basis in Slovakian law, they fall outside the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

2. The applicant further alleges that she did not have an effective remedy at her disposal in respect of her complaints under Article 6 § 1. She relies on Article 13 which reads as follows:

“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.”

The Court recalls that according to its case-law, Article 13 does not require a remedy in domestic law for all claims alleging a breach of the Convention; the claim must be an arguable one (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52). In the light of the above conclusions concerning the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant does not have any arguable claim of a breach of that provision which warrants a remedy under 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