Resolution CM/ ResDH (2012)54 [1]

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Lawyers Partners a.s against the Slovak Republic

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”) [2] ,

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it became final;

Case name (App. No.)

Judgment of

Final on

Lawyers Partners a.s (54252/07)

16/06/2009

06/11/2009

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate, of individual measures to put an end to the violations and as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;

Having invited the authorities of the respondent State to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute the judgment;

Having, in accordance with the Committee ’ s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report provided by the government (see action report, document DH ‑ D D (20 1 2)71E );

Having noted that the respondent State paid the a p plicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;

DECLARES, that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

Lawyer Partners, a.s . v. Slovakia ,

(App. Nos. 54252/07, 3274/08, 3377/08, 3505/08, 3526/08, 3741/08, 3786/08, 3807/08,

3824/08, 15055/08, 29548/08, 29551/08, 29552/08, 29555/08 and 29557/08), judgment of 16/06/2009, final on 06/11/2009

Introductory case summary

This case concerns a violation of the applicant company ’ s right of access to a court due to domestic courts ’ refusal in 2006 to register legal actions filed by the company in electronic form (violation of Article 6 § 1). Provision for electronic filing has been included in the Code of Civil Procedure since 2002, and the European Court of Human Rights held that the applicant company could not be reproached for having availed itself of that facility, which was entirely in keeping with the volume of cases pursued (over 70 000 actions). The European Court held that the refusal imposed a disproportionate limitation on the applicant company ’ s right to use efficient means to present its cases to a court. The Constitutional Court rejected the applicant company ’ s complaints as having been lodged outside the statutory two-month time-limit, as the applicant had earlier learned that the district courts lacked the necessary equipment and had failed to file a complaint at that time.

Since 2008 the Constitutional Court has systematically approached similar cases in the manner prescribed by the European Court, namely that the statutory time-limit for lodging a complaint commences from the date of notification of the court ’ s refusal to register the specific submission. In those cases the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 6§1 of the Convention and ordered the ordinary courts concerned to process the actions.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

The European Court awarded the applicant company 10 000 euros as just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage for loss of real opportunities, as well as in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Further it awarded the applicant company 8 000 euros for costs and expenses. Total sum of 18 000 euros has been paid to the applicant company on 22/01/2010.

b) Other individual measures

The European Court considered that the most appropriate form of redress in such cases, in which the applicant has been denied access to a tribunal because of an unjustified refusal to register its actions, would be to register the original submissions as if they had been filed on the date when the applicant company first submitted them and to deal with them in keeping with ail the requirements of a fair trial (see § 62 of the judgment).

In the period from the end of 2006 and pending 2007 the district courts had been provided with the technical equipment for dealing with the actions signed with the qualified electronic signature. From 2008 the district courts effectively register the electronic actions.

On February 2010 the Agent of the Government before the European Court of Human Rights requested the district courts concerned to register the actions of the applicant company with the original date of submittal in 2006 or to register them with the actual date but while dealing with them, for purpose of examination of the prescription time limit, to consider them as submitted in 2006. In reply to the letter of the Agent of the Government, several district courts ( Humenné District Court, Trenčin District Court, Dolný Kubín District Court, Povasžkà Bystrica District Court, Bardejov District Court, Lučenec District Court, PieÅ¡t ’ any District Court) informed the Office of the Agent that notwithstanding their repeated requests, the applicant company has not submitted the original electronic motions on DVD ’ s in order to register them and dealing with them (original electronic motions on DVD ’ s were returned to the applicant in 2006).

On December 2011 the Agent of the Government before the European Court of Human Rights requested the district courts concerned to submit the information whether the actions of the applicant company have been already registered and are dealt with.

In reply to the letter of the Agent of the Government, Svidnik District Court, Piešt ’ any District Court (to which the part of the actions were transmitted from Trnava District Court) and Trnava District Court informed the Office of the Agent that all proceedings on the electronic actions submitted by the applicant company had already been terminated with final effects.

However, Dolný Kubín District Court, Nové Zàmky District Court, Rimavskà Sobota District Court, Levice District Court, Lučenec District Court, Humenné District Court, Kežmarok District Court, Bardejov District Court, Vel ’ ký Krtíč District Court, Trenčín District Court and Povasžkà Bystrica District Court informed the Office of the Agent that notwithstanding their repeated requests, the applicant company still has not submitted the original electronic motions on DVD ’ s in order to register them and dealing with them (the applicant company alleges that the original electronic motions on DVD ’ s were submitted to the European Court). As the district courts are fully prepared to register the electronic actions of the applicant company but the applicant company does not cooperate, the Government is of the opinion that no other measures are required.

Il. General measures

a) Publication and dissemination

The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue ( Justičná Revue) No. 10/2009. In June 2009, the Agent of the Government before the European Court of Human Rights sent the judgment and its Slovak translation to all district courts concerned.

b) Other measures

Article 42§1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended with effect from 1 May 2002, provides that submissions to a court can be made in written form, orally into the record, by means of electronic devices subject to the submission bearing a secured electronic signature in accordance with a special law, by telegraph or by fax. The violation found in this case had its base in the fact that in 2006 the district courts lacked the necessary equipment for registering the electronic actions. In the period from the end of 2006 and pending 2007 the district courts had been provided with the technical equipment for dealing with the actions signed with the qualified electronic signature. From 2008 the district courts effectively register the electronic actions.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with their obligations under Article 46§1 of the Convention.

In Bratislava , 23 January 2012

Marica Pirošiková

Agent of the Slovak Republic

before the European Court of Human Rights

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 11 36 th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies .

[2] See also the Recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular Recommendation Rec (2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the improvement of domestic remedies.