CASE OF GREŠÁKOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
Alena Poláčková;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova
6. The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Rudinská. 7. On 17 December 2008 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Žilina District Court (file no. 8 C 240/2008) seeking an order for the defendant (a municipality) to enter into a contract with her concerning the transfer of a flat, in which she resided. 8. The District Court scheduled two hearings for 8 June and 8 July 2009; it ruled on the merits of the action and granted the action on the latter date. The applicant lodged an appeal; the judgment was quashed by a court of appeal on 8 April 2010 and the matter was remitted on 4 June 2010 to the District Court. 9. The applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court contesting the length of the proceedings in so far as those had been held before the District Court. 10. On 11 October 2012 the Constitutional Court (file no. II. ÚS 423/2012) rejected her complaint on the ground that, prior to lodging her constitutional complaint, the applicant had failed to exhaust ordinary remedies, in particular lodging a complaint with the President of the District Court under the Courts Act (Law no. 757/2004). The Constitutional Court noted that the court of appeal had transferred the case file to the District Court on 4 June 2010 and that the applicant had lodged her constitutional complaint on 27 September 2012. It found that, within that period, the District Court had failed actively to proceed with the matter for one year and a half. The Constitutional Court observed that the Court’s previous case-law – such as Ištván and Ištvánová v. Slovakia (no. 30189/07, 12 June 2012), which concerned a delay of more than six years – dealt with unjustified delays imputable to the courts that were substantially longer than those in the present case (one year and a half). The Constitutional Court considered that, because the unjustified delays in the present case had been shorter (compared to those in respect of Ištván and Ištvánová and other similar cases), it was justified in requiring – before turning for protection to the Constitutional Court – that the applicant lodge a complaint with the President of the District Court with a view to accelerating her proceedings. 11. Following the Constitutional Court’s decision, the District Court scheduled a hearing for 9 September 2015. At the time of communication of the application the proceedings were still pending.