CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4EC3C151 { width:116.76pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 7206/22 LINI S.R.O. against Slovakia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9   November 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Ivana Jelić , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1   February 2022, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant company’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant company was represented by Mr O. Urban, then by Mr Sisák and, ultimately, by Ms M. Lichnerová, lawyers practising in Bratislava. The applicant company’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Slovak Government (“the Government”). The impugned proceedings started on 19 April 2018 when the applicant company applied to the Bratislava III District Court to issue a payment order for a sum of approximately 2,000 euros (EUR), with interest. The payment order issued on 16 October 2018 was quashed, upon the defendant’s complaint, on 21 November 2018. Following an exchange of the parties’ observations, the court scheduled a hearing for 31 October 2019, which was subsequently adjourned on account of the illness of the representative of the defendant. At the hearing on 28 November 2019, the case was adjourned until 3 February 2020 to enable the parties to reach a friendly settlement. On the latter date, the parties suggested supplementing evidence. The hearing scheduled for 20 April 2020 was adjourned due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and the hearing scheduled for 25   May 2020 was adjourned on account of the unavailability of the defendant’s representative and of a witness. The next hearing took place on 17 September 2020, while the hearing scheduled for 23   November 2020 was adjourned upon a request of the defendant’s representative, due to quarantine, and the hearing scheduled for 11 February 2021 was adjourned to 25 March 2021 upon the request of the applicant company’s representative. Following the objection of the defendant to a hearing being held in his absence, the hearing was postponed to 24 June 2021 and then, on account of the defendant’s representative’s sickness, to 25   October 2021. In the meantime, the court dealt with the defendant’s application to hear another witness. Upon the defendant’s representative’s request, the hearing scheduled for 3 February 2022 was re-scheduled for 24   February 2022. On that date, the District Court delivered a judgment granting the applicant’s company’s claim. The judgment became final on 30   March 2022; thus, only the amount of the costs awarded to the applicant company remained to be determined. In the meantime, on 9 December 2021 the Constitutional Court (II.   ÚS   591/2021) dismissed the applicant’s company’s constitutional complaint, lodged on 22 October 2021, concerning its right to a trial within a reasonable time. It considered that the impugned proceedings had lasted approximately three years and seven months when the applicant company had lodged its constitutional complaint, which the Constitutional Court did not find excessive given the reasons for the repeated adjournments of the hearings and the exceptional situation caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. THE LAW The Government endorsed the findings of the Constitutional Court that the length of the proceedings before the District Court had been adversely impacted by several adjournments requested mainly by the defendant’s representative, for which the court could not be held liable, and by the Covid ‑ 19 emergency situation. They underlined that a final judgment on the merits had already been delivered and that the applicant company could turn to the Constitutional Court again should the subsequent proceedings on costs suffer from delays. The Court notes that the impugned proceedings before the first-instance court had lasted approximately three years and eight months at the time of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 9 December 2021, and that they were then concluded quite quickly. While such a length may, in principle, raise issues under the Convention, the Court cannot ignore that there were no major periods of inactivity attributable to the relevant court and that the Covid-19 restrictions could have had an adverse effect on the processing (see Q and R v. Slovenia , no. 19938/20, §80, 8 February 2022). It appears indeed that at least two hearings, scheduled for 20 April 2020 and 25 March 2021, had to be adjourned due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Moreover, several other hearings were adjourned because of the unavailability, duly excused, of the defendant’s representative. The Court also considers that, given the relatively small amount at stake, the case was of minor importance for the applicant company. In view of the above, the Court considers that the applicant company’s complaints about the length of the proceedings are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 30 November 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Krzysztof Wojtyczek   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of registration   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Domestic court File number Domestic award (in euros) 7206/22 01/02/2022 LINI S.R.O. 2013 Lichnerová Monika Bratislava 19/04/2018 30/03/2022 (merits) More than 3 years and 11 months and 13 days 1 level of jurisdiction   Constitutional Court: II. US 591/2021   0