CASE OF KLIMEK v. SLOVAKIA
Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award
Nicolas Bratza
4. The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Bratislava. 5. On 5 January 1994 the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal from a job before the Bratislava III District Court. 6. On 2 September 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava III District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delays. In its finding the Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that the case had to be adjourned on twelve occasions as the chamber dealing with it was incomplete. 7. On 6 October 1999 the District Court declared the applicant’s dismissal unlawful. The judgment was served on the applicant on 14 March 2000 and the defendant company appealed on 17 March 2000. 8. On 4 October 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment to the extent that it concerned the compensation awarded to the applicant and the decision on court fee. The Regional Court upheld the remainder of the District Court’s judgment. 9. In the proceedings concerning the outstanding part of the applicant’s claims the Bratislava III District Court scheduled hearings for 23 November 2001 and 15 February 2002. The proceedings are pending. 10. Article 48 (2) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that every person has the right to have his or her case tried without unjustified delay. 11. Pursuant to Article 130 (3) of the Constitution, as in force until 30 June 2001, the Constitutional Court could commence proceedings upon the petition (“podnet”) presented by any individual or a corporation claiming that their rights have been violated. 12. According to its case-law under the former Article 130 (3) of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court lacked jurisdiction to draw legal consequences from a violation of a petitioner’s rights under Article 48 (2) of the Constitution. It could neither grant damages to the person concerned nor impose a sanction on the public authority liable for the violation found. In the Constitutional Court’s view, it was therefore for the authority concerned to provide redress to the person whose rights were violated. 13. As from 1 January 2002, the Constitution has been amended in that, inter alia, individuals and legal persons can complain about a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms pursuant to Article 127. Under this provision the Constitutional Court has the power, in case that it found a violation of Article 48 (2) of the Constitution, to order the authority concerned to proceed with the case without delay. It may also grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose constitutional right was violated as a result of excessive length of proceedings (for further details see, e.g., Andrášik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos. 57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01, 60226/00, 22 October 2002). 14. According to an explanatory letter by the President of the Constitutional Court of 6 June 2002, nothing has prevented the Constitutional Court from dealing with complaints about length of proceedings in cases in which proceedings have also been instituted before the European Court of Human Rights provided that the domestic proceedings complained of are still pending at the moment when the constitutional complaint is filed. The letter further states that where the Constitutional Court earlier found a violation of Article 48 (2) of the Constitution, a further complaint about delays in the same proceedings can be entertained only to the extent that it relates to the period after the delivery of the first finding of the Constitutional Court. However, when deciding on such cases the Constitutional Court will, as a rule, take into account that the ordinary courts have failed to proceed with the case without undue delays following its finding of a violation of Article 48 (2) of the Constitution.