PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES CASADEVALL AND BONELLO

(Translation)

1. We did not vote with the majority on items 3 and 4 of the operational provisions of the judgment because, without any convincing reason being given, the amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage under Article 41 (just satisfaction) was substantially less than it should have been.

2. The applicant had brought two sets of civil proceedings. The first concerned an application to bring a co-ownership arrangement to an end and began on 27 March 1991; the second concerned a claim for a sum of money and began on 20 November 1995. However, even though the applicant has exhausted the available domestic remedies in the Constitutional Court , both sets of proceedings are still pending. The question which this raises is whether the remedy provided to deal with length-of-proceedings complaints in Slovakia is (in the light of the principles established by the Kudla v. Poland judgment) effective “ ... in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred”. This does not appear to have been the case in this instance, as the proceedings have still not ended and the applicant has received only EUR 750 in compensation.

3. The applicant may, therefore, still claim to be a victim of the alleged violation, as is recognised in paragraph 89 of the judgment. Since s he has not, in our view, contributed to the excessiv e delays in the proceedings, her award of just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage should have been calculated in accordance with the principles laid down in the recent judgments of Cocchiarella v. Italy and Scordino v. Italy , which, by our reckoning, would have entitled her to the sum of EUR 6,775.

[1] The equivalent of approximately 500 euros.

[2] The equivalent of approximately 250 euros.