MICHALIKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
Inadmissible
Nicolas Bratza
The applicant, Mrs Helena Michalíková, is a Slovakian national, born in 1951 and living in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia. The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. Vršanský, their Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1991 the applicant initiated judicial proceedings before the Banská Bystrica District Court seeking protection of her personality rights. On 18 July 1994 the action was dismissed. On 24 June 1997 the Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court for a decision on the applicant’s petition for exemption from the obligation to pay court fees. On 18 August 1997 the District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees. Subsequently the case file was mistakenly placed in the District Court’s archive. On 1 June 2001 the case file was transmitted to the Regional Court for a decision on the applicant’s appeal. On 19 September 2001 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment of 18 July 1994. The proceedings are pending at first instance. 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. 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 the relevant part of which reads as follows: “1. The Constitutional Court shall decide on complaints lodged by natural or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms or of human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in international treaties ratified by the Slovak Republic ... unless the protection of such rights and freedoms falls within the jurisdiction of a different court. 2. When the Constitutional Court finds that a complaint is justified, it shall deliver a decision stating that a person’s rights or freedoms set out in paragraph 1 have been violated as a result of a final decision, by a particular measure or by means of any other interference. It shall quash such a decision, measure or other interference. When the violation found is the result of a failure to act, the Constitutional Court may order that [the authority] which violated such rights or freedoms shall take the necessary action. At the same time the Constitutional Court may return the case to the authority concerned for further proceedings, order that such an authority abstain from violating fundamental rights and freedoms ... or, where appropriate, order that those who violated the rights or freedoms set out in paragraph 1 restore the situation to that existing prior to the violation. 3. In its decision on a complaint the Constitutional Court may grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose rights under paragraph 1 have been violated.” ... The implementation of the above constitutional provisions is set out in more detail in Sections 49 - 56 of Act No. 38/1993 (the Constitutional Court Act), as amended with effect from 20 March 2002. After 20 March 2002 the Constitutional Court delivered a number of decisions in which it found a violation of Article 48 (2) of the Constitution, ordered the general court concerned to avoid any further delays in the proceedings and awarded the successful complainants financial compensation in respect of delays which had already occurred.