Resolution CM/ ResDH (2010)69 [1]

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Pavlík and Z. against Slovakia

(Application No. 74827/01, judgment of 30 January 2007, final on 30 April 2007, and

Application No. 5868/02, judgment of 13 May 2008, final on 13 August 2008)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 4 6, 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”);

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against the applicants between 1996 and 2003 (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the mea s ures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee ’ s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limits set, the respondent state paid the a p plicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

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 erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2010)69

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments

in the cases of Pavlík and Z. against Slovakia

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against the applicants between 1996 and 2003 (violations of Article 6§1).

The Pavlík case concerned proceedings before a District Court. The proceedings before the District Court lasted from 10/12/1999 until 31/03/2000, resumed on 21/06/2000 and ended on 10/01/2003. The proceeding thus lasted more than 2 years and 9 months for a single level of jurisdiction. The European Court noted that although the Constitutional Court in 2004 found a violation concerning the excessive length of the proceedings in question, it did not award compensation.

In the Z. case, the proceedings lasted from 24/07/1996 to 24/12/1996 and from 16/04/1997 to 06/07/2001. The proceedings thus lasted 4 years, 6 months and 22 days for the pre-trial stage and judicial proceedings at two levels. The Court held that the facts indicated that the authorities dealing with the pre-trial stage failed to proceed in an effective manner.

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Pavlík (74827/01)

-

2,400 EUR

-

2,400 EUR

Paid on 18/07/2007

Z. (5868/02)

-

2,800 EUR

2,900 EUR

Paid on 25/09/2008

b) Individual measures

In the Pavlík case, proceedings before the District Court ended on 10/01/2003, and criminal proceedings in their entirety ended in September 2005. The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In these circumstances, no further individual measure is considered necessary.

In the Z. case, the criminal proceedings ended on 06/07/2001. The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In these circumstances, no further individual measure is considered necessary.

II. General measures

General measures have been adopted in the case of Krumpel and Krumpelová v Slovakia (judgment of 05/07/2005) concerning the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages, and closed by Resolution CM/ ResDH (2007)10. In particular, provisions to accelerate criminal proceedings entered into force on 01/01/2006 in the new Code of Criminal Procedure.

Since 01/01/2002, individuals have been entitled to lodge a petition before the Constitutional Court regarding alleged violations of the right to be heard within a reasonable time. A number of Constitutional Court cases were decided between 2005 and 2007 in which a finding of a violation of the Constitution for excessive length of criminal proceedings resulted in an award of damages and legal costs, and, where applicable, an order to the relevant authorities to proceed without undue delay [2] . The compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court is of a similar level to this just satisfaction granted by the European Court for non-pecuniary damage for comparable violations.

Moreover, the Minister of Justice is currently preparing a policy for “reinforcing the judiciary” which will include proposals for improving the Slovakian judicial system.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Slovakia have thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies

[2] See, file No. III.ÚS 183/05 of 29/09/2005, file No. III.ÚS 93/07 of 04/09/2007, file No. II.ÚS. 325/06 of 27.03.2007 case of JUDr.S.C , file IV.ÚS. 289/05 of 29.03.2006 case of A.A., file IV.ÚS 5/06 of 05.04.2006 case of Ing.M.M , file III.ÚS 17/06 of 17/05/2005 case of M.K and file I.ÚS 117/06 of 07/09/2006 case of J.P.