HODY v. SLOVAKIA
Inadmissible
Nicolas Bratza
The applicant, Mr Štefan Hody, is a Slovakian national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava. He is represented before the Court by Mr J. Jurovský, a lawyer practising in Piešťany. 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. On 18 May 1994 the applicant requested the enforcement of a payment order of 20 April 1994 by which a sum of money had been awarded to him. The case was examined several times by the Vranov nad Topľou District Court and the appellate court, and on 28 April 1999 the President of the Vranov nad Topľou District Court admitted that there had been undue delays in the enforcement proceedings. On 23 October 2002 the Vranov nad Topľou District Court discontinued the proceedings as the debtor’s truck which the applicant had proposed to sell had been destroyed. 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. 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 were instituted also 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.