Marian SLOVAK v Slovakia - 34193/07 [2011] ECHR 1877 (11 October 2011)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] European Court of Human Rights You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Marian SLOVAK v Slovakia - 34193/07 [2011] ECHR 1877 (11 October 2011) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1877.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1877 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 34193/07 Marián SLOVÁK against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 October 2011 as a Committee composed of: Ineta Ziemele, President, Ján Šikuta, Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 July 2007, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Marián Slovák, is a Slovak national who was born in 1945 and lives in Cífer. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Piro šíková. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim On 12 September 1997 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava III District Court. He requested the District Court to oblige an institution which was in charge of post-graduate education of medical practitioners to set a date for his examination in endocrinology. The applicant alleged that the defendant had refused to do so notwithstanding that he had met all statutory requirements. The District Court dismissed the action on 5 November 2007. The applicant appealed on 21 January 2008. On 30 September 2009 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment. The file was returned to the District Court on 29 December 2009. In the course of 2010 the District Court obtained documentary evidence and scheduled three hearings two of which had to be adjourned due to the parties’ failure to appear. On 21 March 2011 the District Court discontinued the proceedings holding that the issue fell to be determined by the Ministry of Health. The decision stated that, after it has become final, the file would be transferred to the Ministry of Health. 2. Constitutional proceedings On 18 September 2008 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had breached the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay. It granted the applicant the equivalent of EUR 4,957 as just satisfaction and ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs. Noting that the proceedings were pending before the court of appeal, in respect of which the applicant had made no complaint, the Constitutional Court did not consider it necessary to order the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair, lasted too long and that he was denied access to court. THE LAW The applicant complained about unfairness and duration of the proceedings concerning his action. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which in the relevant part provides: “ In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” The Government argued that Article 6 § 1 was not applicable as the proceedings did not concern a determination of the applicant’s civil rights or obligations within the meaning of that provision. As to the complaint about the duration of the proceedings, the applicant had obtained appropriate redress before the Constitutional Court. The applicant disagreed. The Court considers that it is not required to determine whether Article 6 § 1 applies since, in any event, the application is inadmissible for the following reasons. As to the length of the proceedings complaint, the Court considers that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a breach of his right in issue (for recapitulation of the relevant case-law see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 65-107, ECHR 2006-V; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006-V; and Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 17 September 2007). In particular, before the Constitutional Court the applicant exclusively complained about the conduct of the Bratislava III District Court. In that respect the Constitutional Court, on 18 September 2008, found a breach of the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay, granted him EUR 4,957 as just satisfaction and ordered the reimbursement of the applicant’s costs. The just satisfaction granted by the Constitutional Court is not manifestly inadequate and the Court can accept, in accordance with the principles established in the case-law referred to above, that it provided appropriate redress to the applicant in the circumstances. The Court finds no substantial delays in the subsequent proceedings before the District Court. Furthermore, the applicant has not complained to the Constitutional Court about any delays in the proceedings before the court of appeal. In that respect he has not, therefore, exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The remaining complaints of the applicant concern the fairness of the proceedings and alleged breach of his right of access to a court. Since it does not appear from the documents submitted that in that respect the applicant sought, after having used the other remedies available, redress before the Constitutional Court, this part of the application must be likewise rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for the applicant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. Marialena Tsirli Ineta Ziemele Deputy Registrar President BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1877.html