FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 28368/19 Anton MAGÁT against Slovakia

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 November 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Erik Wennerström, President, Lorraine Schembri Orland, Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 May 2019,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The details of the applicant, a Slovak national, are set out in the appended table.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of proceedings initiated by his ex-wife on 24 March 2006 and regarding the dissolution of their property following their divorce were communicated to the Slovak Government (“the Government”) on 17 September 2020.

It follows from the Government’s observations that on 26 May 2014 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint challenging the length of the proceedings before the first-instance court.

On 6 June 2016 the applicant lodged a second constitutional complaint.

The Constitutional Court ruled on the first constitutional complaint by its judgment of 10 September 2014 (I. US 355/2014) and on the second constitutional complaint by its judgment of 14 September 2016 (I. US 401/2016). In both cases, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a trial within reasonable time and awarded him 1,500 and 1,000 euros (EUR) in just satisfaction, respectively. In its 2014 decision, the Constitutional Court referred to the applicant’s lack of cooperation with the court-appointed expert, for which a disciplinary fine had been imposed on him, as well as to the procedural complexity of the case caused by the applicant’s numerous unfounded procedural requests and appeals.

On 8 March 2017 the first-instance court adopted a judgment and both parties appealed.

By its decision of 11 December 2018 (III. US 490/2018), the Constitutional Court dismissed as manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s third constitutional complaint challenging the length of the proceedings before the appellate court, finding that they were not long. Although the applicant also raised, in substance, the length of the proceedings before the first-instance court, the Constitutional Court did not examine them, as they had not been included in the summary of the applicant’s constitutional complaint.

On 31 May 2019 the appellate court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.

It further follows from the Government’s observations that on 16 December 2019 the applicant lodged a fourth constitutional complaint challenging the length of the proceedings before the first-instance court.

On 17 June 2020 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a trial within reasonable time and awarded him EUR 500 in just satisfaction, taking into account the factual complexity of the case and the applicant’s obstructive behaviour (I. US 48/2020).

In the meantime, on 3 June 2020, the first-instance court adopted a new decision and both parties appealed. The case file was transmitted to the appellate court on 23 October 2020, where the proceedings have been pending since that date.

THE LAW

Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings)

Given that the applicant had not informed the Court about the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 10 September 2014 and 17 June 2020 awarding him compensation, the Government, in particular, argued that the present application amounted to an abuse of a right of individual petition. In addition, they submitted that the applicant had lost his victim status because of the acknowledgment of the violation and the financial compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court. The Government additionally submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the overall length of the proceedings, since he had directed the summary of his constitutional complaints either only against the first ‑ instance or only against the appellate courts (see Obluk v. Slovakia , no. 69484/01, §§ 48 and 62, 20 June 2006).

The applicant did not comment on his omission to mention the above Constitutional Court’s decisions and merely stated that they had not had any accelerating effect. Emphasising that the proceedings were still pending, he asserted that the global amount of just satisfaction awarded by the Constitutional Court’s decisions was insufficient.

The Court notes that relevant principles applicable to the abuse of a right of individual application have been summarized in the Court’s judgment Gross v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014).

Having regard to the Constitutional Court’s decisions’ subject matter and outcome, the Court considers that they both concern the very core of the case, in particular as regards the redress afforded to the applicant, in relation to the question of his status as of a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention of the alleged violation of the Convention and, as the case may be, to the amount of just satisfaction to be awarded under Article 41 (see Buzinger v. Slovakia (dec.) , no. 32133/10, § 21, 16 June 2015).

In particular, the Court notes that the applicant did not provide any explanation for his failure to inform it in his application about the Constitutional Court’s decision of 10 September 2014, although he must have been aware of it. In this context, the Court cannot but observe that the decision specifically pointed to the applicant’s significant contribution to the delays, which is also relevant for the Court when examining cases about length of proceedings (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII).

Neither did the applicant mention in his application the Constitutional Court’s decision of 14 September 2016, which the Court only learned about from the Constitutional Court’s decision of 11 December 2018 submitted by the applicant in support of his application.

As regards the fourth Constitutional Court’s decision, the Court notes that it was adopted following a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant on 16 December 2019. Since the present application was lodged on 17 May 2019, the applicant could not have mentioned it in his application. Nevertheless, the Court cannot but observe that the applicant accepted the Court’s friendly-settlement proposal by a letter dated 6 October 2020, while the impugned Constitutional Court’s decision had already been adopted in June 2020. Thus, at the relevant time, the applicant must have been aware of the just satisfaction awarded by the Constitutional Court but did not inform the Court about it (see, a contrario, Raticova v. Slovakia , no. 20305/20, § 16, 10 June 2021).

In view of those considerations, the Court finds it sufficiently established that by omitting to disclose the information in question to the Court, the applicant intended to mislead it within the meaning of the established case ‑ law.

Accordingly, it is appropriate to reject the application as an abuse of the right of individual application, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 2 December 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Viktoriya Maradudina Erik Wennerström Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Start of proceedings

End of proceedings

Total length

Levels of jurisdiction

Domestic court

File number

Domestic award

(in euros)

28368/19

17/05/2019

Anton MAGÁT

1957

24/03/2006

pending

More than 15 years, 5 months and 29 days

2 levels of jurisdiction

Constitutional Court

I. US 355/2014,

I. US 401/2016,

III. US 490/2018 and

I. US 48/2020

3,000