FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF J.V. AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
 
(Application no. 41523/07)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
23 November 2010
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of J.V. and Others v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Lech Garlicki, President,
 Ján Šikuta,
 Vincent Anthony de Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 November 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 41523/07) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Slovak nationals on 7 September 2007. The first applicant, Mr J.V., is the father of the second applicant, Mr R.S., and of the third applicant, Ms E.S., (“the applicants”). 2. The applicants were initially represented by Mrs Z. Neuschlová and, subsequently, by Mr J. Čarnogurský, lawyers practising in Bratislava. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková. 3. On 9 March 2009 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges. THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicants were born in 1947, 1986 and 1986 respectively and live in Bratislava. 1. Civil proceedings
5. On 7 April 1995 the applicants claimed compensation for damage to their health (infection with Hepatitis C). 6. On 6 November 2007 the Bratislava I District Court dismissed their action. 7. On 29 May 2009 the Bratislava Regional Court, upon the applicants' appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case file for further examination to the district court. 8. On 18 January 2010 the applicants complained to the President of the district court about undue delays. On 2 February 2010 the President of the court concerned acknowledged that there had been delays in the proceedings. 9. On 4 March, 18 May and 1 July 2010 the district court held hearings. 10. The proceedings are pending. 2. First set of constitutional proceedings 
11. On 8 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicants' right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court awarded 30,000 Slovakian Korunas (SKK) to each applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ordered the district court to avoid further delays and to reimburse the applicants' legal costs. 3. Second set of constitutional proceedings
 
12. On 15 March 2007 the Constitutional Court found that, in the period after its previous ruling, the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicants' right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 50,000 to each applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ordered the district court to avoid further delays and to reimburse the applicants' legal costs. THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
13. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. Admissibility
14. The Government expressed the view that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time. They argued that the Constitutional Court had twice expressly acknowledged such a violation, had awarded the applicants sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage suffered, had ordered the district court to proceed without further delay and had ordered reimbursement of their legal costs. The applicants should have lodged a fresh constitutional complaint in respect of the subsequent period. 15. The applicants contested the above arguments. They argued that the compensatory and accelerating effects produced by the Constitutional Courts' findings had not been sufficient. In view of the above, they were not obliged to lodge a fresh constitutional complaint. The applicants pointed to further delays in the subsequent proceedings. They also stressed that the sensitive subject matter of the dispute has required special diligence. 16. The Court notes that, at the time of the second Constitutional Court's finding, the proceedings were pending for eleven years and more than eleven months before the district court. 17. Whether redress afforded to an applicant was adequate and sufficient, having regard to Article 41 of the Convention, falls to be determined in the light of the principles established under the Court's case-law (see, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006-V, and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 65-107, ECHR 2006-V). These include, most notably, the amount of the compensation awarded to the applicant and the effectiveness of any preventive measure applied (see Sika v. Slovakia (no. 3), no. 26840/02, § 54, 23 October 2007). 18. In view of the above, in respect of the proceedings up to the second Constitutional Court's finding of 15 March 2007, the Court accepts the applicants' argument and concludes that the applicants did not lose their status as victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. 19. Since the effects produced by the findings of the Constitutional Court did not satisfy the criteria applied by the Court, the applicants were not required, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, to have again recourse to the remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution in respect of the proceedings subsequent to the Constitutional Court's findings (see the recapitulation of the relevant principles in Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007). The Government's objections must therefore be dismissed. 20. Following the Constitutional Court's second finding, the proceedings have lasted another three years and more than six months at two levels of jurisdiction. 21. It follows that this part of the application cannot be rejected for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and it is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits
22. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). The Court reiterates that, given the subject matter of the dispute, special diligence was necessary in the present case. 23. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Frydlender, cited above). 24. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. In particular, at the time of the second Constitutional Court's finding, the proceedings had lasted eleven years and more than eleven months at one level of jurisdiction. Further delays occurred in the subsequent period which has lasted three years and more than six months at two levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 25.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation