CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 mars 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA427913 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sEC65D5AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s2380EAE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s3F9BA698 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s88A95348 { width:22.67pt; display:inline-block } .sD7CE228C { width:27.11pt; display:inline-block } .s27483D04 { width:24.33pt; display:inline-block } .s6036737A { width:13.75pt; display:inline-block } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)59 [1]   Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 110 cases against the Slovak Republic   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the judgments listed below, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Application Case Judgment of Final on 2015/02 JAKUB 28/02/2006 28/05/2006 13960/06 A.R. SPOL. S RO. 09/02/2010 09/05/2010 18926/07 BACZOVA 19/10/2010   42774/04 BÁŇAS 12/02/2008 12/05/2008 50360/08 BARTL 14/12/2010   31651/06 BERECOVA 19/10/2010   67149/01 BERKOVA 24/03/2009 24/06/2009 23865/03 BIČ 04/11/2008 04/02/2009 22050/05 BÍRO No. 3 18/05/2010 18/08/2010 26456/06 BÍRO No. 4 18/05/2010 18/08/2010 45109/06 BÍRO No. 5 18/05/2010 18/08/2010 16988/02 BOHUCKÝ 23/10/2007 23/01/2008 21371/06 BOŠKOVÁ 02/06/2009 02/09/2009 9401/07 BRUNOVA 23/11/2010   17763/07 BUBLAKOVA 15/02/2011 15/05/2011 35017/03 BUL’KOVÁ 12/05/2009 12/08/2009 65416/01 ČAVAJDA 14/10/2008 14/01/2009 33378/06 ČECHOVA 05/10/2010   21806/05 CHRAPKOVÁ 03/11/2009 03/02/2010 65422/01 DOBÁL 12/12/2006 23/05/2007 15592/03 DUDIČOVÁ 08/01/2009 08/04/2009 42561/04 ĎURECH AND OTHERS 07/07/2009 07/10/2009 30754/04 DVORACEK and DVORACKOVA 28/07/2009 28/10/2009 21326/07 ELIÁŠ 18/03/2008 18/06/2008 39202/04 FEKIAČ AND FEKIAČOVÁ 10/11/2009 10/02/2010 19304/04 GAJDOŠ 23/06/2009 23/09/2009 66083/01 GAŽÍKOVÁ 13/06/2006 13/09/2006 17252/04 GERSTBREIN 21/04/2009 21/07/2009 14757/06 GRAUSOVÁ 02/06/2009 02/09/2009 2010/02 HROBOVÁ 08/06/2006 08/09/2006 16933/03 HUDEČKOVÁ 02/06/2009 02/09/2009 49362/06 IVAN 14/12/2010   41523/07 J.V. AND OTHERS 23/11/2010   16126/05 JAKUBIČKA AND MAGYARICSOVÁ 18/12/2007 18/03/2008 5952/05 JANÍK 27/10/2009 27/01/2010 70798/01 JENČOVÁ 04/05/2006 04/08/2006 70985/01 JUDT 09/10/2007 09/01/2008 44286/06 KANTOROVA 14/12/2010   280/06 KASCAK 30/11/2010   34602/03 KESZELI 13/10/2009 13/01/2010 34200/06 KESZELI No. 2 21/12/2010 21/03/2011 3673/05 KIŠ 13/10/2009 13/01/2010 21692/06 KOCIANOVA 18/05/2010 04/10/2010 45167/06 KOCIANOVÁ NO. 2 18/05/2010 18/08/2010 72092/01 KOMANICKÝ NO. 3   17/06/2008 17/09/2008 70494/01 KOMANICKÝ NO. 4 22/07/2008 22/10/2008 37046/03 KOMANICKÝ NO. 5 13/10/2009 13/01/2010 56161/00 KOMANICKÝ NO.2 02/10/2007 02/01/2008 25951/06 KOMAR 26/10/2010   11051/06 KOSICKÝ AND OTHERS 11/01/2011   29749/05 KUČERA 15/12/2009 15/03/2010 63959/00 KURIL 03/10/2006 03/01/2007 67039/01 KVASNOVÁ 13/06/2006 13/09/2006 52443/99 L.R. 29/11/2005 13/09/2006 39783/05 LADOMÉRY 07/04/2009 07/07/2009 77688/01 LUBINA 19/09/2006 19/12/2006 44068/02 MAGURA 13/06/2006 13/09/2006 8799/04 MAJAN 23/11/2010 23/02/2011 21057/06 MAJERÍKOVÁ 24/11/2009 24/02/2010 21076/06 MAJTAS 09/11/2010   62187/00 MALEJČÍK 31/01/2006 03/07/2006 30036/06 MARTIKÁN 20/01/2009 20/04/2009 33827/03 MATIA 27/11/2007 27/02/2008 27452/05 MOSAT’ 21/09/2010 21/12/2010 21302/02 MÚČKOVÁ 13/06/2006 13/09/2006 1494/05 NOVÁK 02/06/2009 02/09/2009 69484/01 OBLUK 20/06/2006 20/09/2006 67035/01 OREL 09/01/2007 09/04/2007 18968/05 PALDAN 15/12/2009 15/03/2010 9818/02 PALGUTOVÁ 17/05/2005 12/10/2005 11395/06 PETRINCOVÁ 08/12/2009 08/03/2010 18148/05 PINTER 14/12/2010 14/03/2011 45148/06 POBIJAKOVÁ 18/03/2008 18/06/2008 54330/00 PRELOŽNÍK 12/12/2006 23/05/2007 25657/08 RADVAK AND RADVAKOVA 11/01/2011 11/04/2011 25763/02 RAPOŠ 20/05/2008 20/08/2008 58174/00 RIŠKOVÁ 22/08/2006 22/11/2006 36818/06 ROŠKOVÁ 08/12/2009 08/03/2010 51071/06 RUSŇAKOVÁ 14/04/2009 14/07/2009 72019/01 ŠČURYOVÁ 31/10/2006 31/01/2007 72237/01 ŠEDÝ 19/12/2006 19/03/2007 50224/99 ŠIDLOVÁ 26/09/2006 26/12/2006 2132/02 SIKA 13/06/2006 13/09/2006 26840/02 SIKA NO. 3 23/10/2007 23/01/2008 44508/04 SIKA NO. 4 27/11/2007 27/02/2008 284/06 SIKA NO. 5 02/06/2009 02/09/2009 868/05 SIKA NO. 6 10/11/2009 10/02/2010 30633/06 SIROTNAK 21/12/2010 11/04/2011 58708/00 SKURČÁK 05/12/2006 05/03/2007 23865/02 ŠNEGOŇ 12/12/2006 12/03/2007 32427/06 SOFTEL SPOL. S R.O. NO. 1 16/12/2008 16/03/2009 32836/06 SOFTEL SPOL. S R.O. NO. 2 16/12/2008 16/03/2009 77690/01 SOLÁROVÁ AND OTHERS 05/12/2006 05/03/2007 39139/05 ŠPANÍR 18/12/2007 07/07/2008 36528/05 ŠPATKA 15/12/2009 15/03/2010 23846/02 ŠTEFÁNIKOVÁ 23/10/2007 23/01/2008 26077/03 SYKORA 18/01/2011   40047/06 SZIGETIOVA 05/10/2010 05/01/2011 77720/01 TERÉNI 20/06/2006 20/09/2006 17709/04 TOMLÁKOVÁ 05/12/2006 05/03/2007 57986/00 TUREK 14/02/2006 13/09/2006 7408/05 URIK 21/12/2010 21/03/2011 3305/04 VIČANOVÁ 18/12/2007 07/07/2008 54826/00 VOZÁR 14/11/2006 14/02/2007 1941/06 VRABEC 30/11/2010   67036/01 VUJČÍK 13/12/2005 13/09/2006 28652/03 WEISS 18/12/2007 18/03/2008 42356/05 WOLFF 19/10/2010   7908/07 ZAREMBOVA 23/11/2010 23/02/2011 28923/06 ZONGOROVÁ 19/01/2010 19/04/2010   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of individual measures to put an end to the violations and as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;   Having invited the authorities of the respondent state to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute each of the judgments listed in the table above;   Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report provided by the government for these cases (see appendix);   Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgments;     DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)59   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in 110 cases against the Slovak Republic   Action report on the judgments of the Court of Human Rights in 110 cases against the Slovak Republic concerning excessive length of civil proceedings (the Jakub group)   Introductory case summary   These cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings initiated between 1990 and 2000 and closed, in most of the cases, between 1999 and 2004 (violations of Article 6§1). The European Court recalled its case-law according to which certain disputes (labour law, compensation for damage resulting from an accident, parental rights) should be resolved with special diligence (Magura, Teréni, Palgutova, Lubina, Španίr and Kuril cases).   In addition the European Court, when examining the admissibility of the application in the Jakub case, found that the practice followed by the Constitutional Court in the circumstances of that case had rendered ineffective the constitutional complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, introduced in Slovakia in 2002, against the excessive length of judicial proceedings. In 2003 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s request concerning the excessive length of the proceedings he had instituted on the ground that the proceedings were no longer pending before the court responsible for the alleged delays (see also §§45 and 48 of the judgment of the European Court in the Malejčík case and §§ 35 and 46 in the judgment in L.R.).   In the case of Dudičová, the European Court also found a violation of Article 13 in that the Constitutional Court had rejected the applicant’s claim regarding the excessive length of insolvency proceedings as manifestly unfounded, although the proceedings had been pending for five years. The European Court concluded that “the remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution, as applied in the present case, cannot be considered effective” (§§82-83).   It further noted that the domestic remedy against the excessive length of proceedings introduced in 2002 had turned out to be ineffective in a number of cases, the Constitutional Court having awarded the applicant’s manifestly inadequate compensation (between 5% and 25% of the amounts awarded by the European Court in comparable cases).   In addition the Mučková, Preložník, Šidlová, Komanický No.2 and Berková cases concern the absence of an effective remedy against the excessive length of the same proceedings, in that they were closed respectively before the introduction of the constitutional complaint procedure in 2002 (violations of Article 13). In the Dobál case, the European Court found that there was no effective remedy whereby the applicant might complain about the unreasonable length of proceedings stayed since 1999 (violation of Article 13). On 19/02/2003 the Constitutional Court declared his constitutional complaint inadmissible, as according to its practice, no unjustified delays could exist in proceedings while they were lawfully stayed.   The Mučková case also concerns the unfairness of proceedings in an action brought by the applicant against the state seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from a road accident caused by an official of the Ministry of the Interior (violation of Article 6§1), in which her daughter had been seriously injured. In 1997, the court refused to grant the applicant legal aid on the ground that her action had no chance of success, without advancing any precise justification for this conclusion.   The Turek case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life due to the unfairness of proceedings in which he unsuccessfully challenged his registration by the former State Security Agency (StB) as one of their “agents” (violation of Article 8). The European Court said that when adopting lustration measures a state must ensure that, in proceedings brought in application of such measures, the persons concerned are protected by all the procedural guarantees provided by the Convention. In the Court’s view, the applicant had not benefited from those guarantees inasmuch as the burden of proof was laid upon him to show that he had been registered in breach of the rules applicable at the material time, i.e., the Federal Ministry’s guidelines of 1972 - a confidential document to which he had no access. This requirement had imposed an unrealistic burden on the applicant, in breach of the principle of equality of arms.   The Berkova case also concerns a violation of Article 8 of the Convention due to the fact that domestic courts imposed a three-year prohibition on the applicant from re-applying for restitution of full legal capacity (from 1999 to 2002), after such capacity had been removed in earlier proceedings. The European Court found that the prohibition amounted to a serious interference with the right to respect for the applicant’s private life which, although lawful under the legislation in force at the time, did not respond to any pressing social need and was disproportionate and unnecessary in a democratic society.   The Dvoracek and Dvorackova also case concerns also a violation of the applicant’s right to life (violation of Article 2) on account of the judicial proceedings concerning medical negligence leading to the death of the applicants’ daughter having lacked promptness and reasonable expedition.   I.   Individual measures   a) Length of proceedings   In 63 of the 77 cases concerned the domestic proceedings at issue were concluded. In the following 15 cases the domestic proceedings are still pending before the national courts: Hrobová, Lubina, Orel, Rišková, Softel No. 1, Softel No. 2, Dudičová, Komanický No. 2, Rapoš, Španίr, Chrapková, Keszeli, Kučera, Majeríková and Sika No. 6.   The proceedings still pending are being monitored by the Slovak authorities a proof of which are the letters of the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic from 3 March 2011 addressed to the respective presidents of the domestic courts in order to request information on the actual state of the proceedings pending before them. The Agent also drew their attention to the Resolution of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe CM/ResDH(2010) 225 on the decisions of the Court in 77 cases against the Slovak Republic concerning the unreasonable length of civil proceedings and requested them to accelerate them so far as possible and to terminate them as soon as possible.   b) Other problems   Violation of Article 6§1 (right to a fair trial) in the Mučková case and violation of Article 8 in the Turek case: The applicants had the possibility to apply to have the unfair proceedings reopened under Article 228§1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that parties may so apply if the European Court has found a violation and if the consequences of such violation are not adequately redressed by the payment of just satisfaction. Applications to reopen must be submitted within three months counting from the date upon which the relevant European Court judgment becomes final.   Concerning the Berkova case, violation of Article 8 of the Convention, as stated at §110 of the judgment, with effect from 1 October 2004, Section 186 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure was already amended so that the period during which a person can be prevented from claiming restoration of his or her legal capacity was reduced to a maximum of one year.   The just satisfaction awarded has been paid to the applicants.   No other individual measure appears necessary.   II.   General measures   A)   Measures to reduce the length of proceedings (Article 6§1)   1) Organisational measures   The following measures have been adopted by the authorities:   The Government increased the number of judges by 50 during the first quarter of 2008. In 2009 and 2010, the number of judges was increased by more than 10%.   Following the enactment of Law No. 511/2007 amending Law No. 371/2004, nine local courts have been set up and brought into service since 01/01/08.   The Minister of Justice has invited all judges to adopt a proactive and responsible approach to the fulfilment of their judicial obligations, and visits courts unannounced to verify judges’ state of readiness for hearings.   Certain technical changes have been made to the management of the judicial system including creation of new electronic databases and a central database for the judicial system as an efficient means for users to ascertain the existence of parallel proceedings. Judges can also monitor the progress of the cases before the courts and check up on the situation of the prisoners serving their sentences.   The Ministry of Justice is currently working on a Bill for assigning the judicial groundwork to principal auxiliary judges and court registry staff enabling judges to concentrate exclusively on court decisions.   So far as staffing of courts and differences in the capacity of judges is concerned, the Slovak authorities in cooperation with presidents of the courts prepared measures for the balancing of the burdens of the respective courts and judges so that conditions for proceedings without undue delays at all courts be created. In this regard, at the meeting of the minister of justice with the presidents of regional courts and the president of the Specialised criminal court held in January 2011, a new task was assigned to the respective departments of the Ministry of Justice to be fulfilled i.e. to prepare jointly with the presidents of the courts a report considering the effect of cases, comparable courts, number of judges and requirements on the judges.   In March 2011 the Ministry of Justice published on its web site detailed statistics on the number of case filed with and handed in at courts, from which it is apparent that judges are overloaded. The minister also provided data to the presidents of all the courts. This data, as yet unpublished, clearly shows large differences between some courts. Accordingly, the aim of the minister of justice is to effectively, and so far as possible, fairly reallocate judicial and state public employee positions between the respective courts. The published data includes for example, the number of case files with the courts and the extent of their agenda handled by court officers as not all cases are dealt with by judges. The published data also clearly show the number of judges, the number of terminated and un-terminated cases at the respective courts and also, data on the length of proceedings and “unreasonably long proceedings”. The minister of justice took into consideration this data when assigning 19 free positions to judges at five regional courts, determining on assignment 7 judges to the long-time under–staffed Trnava Regional Court, 5 judges to the Bratislava Regional Court and 1 judge to the Banská Bystrica and Prešov Regional Courts. In cases where delays have been found in the proceedings to an evidently large extent, personal consequences have been drawn against the presidents of the courts.   2)   Procedural changes   Two legislative amendments have been made in the last few years:   1) A set of amendments adopted as Law No. 273/2007, which came into force on 01/07/07 (“little” amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure), which amended Law No. 99/1963 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It also amended Law No. 71/1992 on court costs. The “little” amendment was intended to introduce eight changes in civil procedure so as to improve the functioning of the courts. These changes comprise four administrative measures on allocation of powers, procedures for the service of documents, management of case files in courts of appeal and simplification/reduction of court costs.   There have also been four substantive changes in the Code as regards judicial procedure:   - Article 16: harmonisation of the time-limits for challenging judges with those for bringing appeals. Allegations of bias will no longer be examined under a separate procedure but among the principal grounds of appeal;   - Article 214: courts of appeal can rule on a larger number of issues without holding a hearing, in restricted circumstances which include the parties’ consent not to hold a hearing and subject to a verification of the considerations of public interest which arise; - Articles 250f(3) and 250ja(3): amplification of the class of cases that may be determined without a hearing by administrative courts, when the decision of an administrative authority should manifestly be set aside;   - Article 250t(2): in proceedings brought against the administrative authorities, the public prosecutor may lodge with the court an application to compel the administration concerned to act and to take a decision.   2) An amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure (No. 384/2008), which came into force on 15/10/2008 (“big” amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure) introduced changes including:   - Articles 15 (1) and (2) and 16 (3): harmonisation of the procedure for challenging judges so as to obviate the referral of the case to another judge who might also be concerned by allegations of bias, and enable the court to continue dealing with the case (though without deciding on the merits), on condition that the allegations of bias are ill-founded;   - Article 29a (1) and (2): possibility for courts to appoint joint counsel for several parties to the proceedings in cases with over twenty plaintiffs or respondents, making it possible in particular to expedite proceedings when a party has died and has no known heirs; if a party objects to the appointment of the joint counsel, the dispute in that regard can be disjoined and determined under a separate procedure;   - Articles 38 (1), (2) and (5) and 175cza (7): simplification of the procedure on inheritance which a notary conducts by permission of the court, being able to issue certificates of succession;   - Article 45 (3) to (6): possibility for the parties to proceedings to serve and to be served documents electronically;   - Articles 114 (1) and (3) to (6) and 115a (2): extension of the possibility for the court to determine a case without a hearing, and introduction of a simplified procedure for the settlement of minor litigation; the first amendment provides scope for frustrating dilatory tactics by parties to proceedings failing to make their submissions or to take delivery of their mail (a judgment by default is nevertheless hedged with guarantees of due process: it is delivered publicly and may be set aside at appeal);   - Articles 172 (5) and (6) and 174b (1): extension of the scope of the legal rules governing court orders, so that courts are authorised to issue not only an order to pay but also an injunction to take or refrain from action;   - Article 221 (1) (h): limitation of the possibility for courts of appeal to challenge the decisions delivered at first instance and to refer them back for review; such referral is henceforth possible only where the court of first instance has both wrongly established the facts and misapplied the law;   - Article 243b (1) to (4) and (6): introduction of the principle of review in proceedings before the Court of Cassation, enabling it to rectify certain decisions which are appealed on points of law instead of overturning them and referring them to a court below for review.   3)   Publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgments: The judgments of the Court against the Slovak Republic are regularly published in the journal Justičná revue.   4)   Effectiveness of the measures adopted   The average length of civil proceedings in the last few years is as follows:   2002   15.18 months 2003   16.56 months 2004   17.56 months 2005   16.86 months 2006   15.40 months 2007   15.06 months 2008   14.07 months 2009   13.00 months 2010   11.77 months   B)   Measures for bringing an effective domestic appeal in the event of excessively lengthy civil proceedings (Article 13)   A reform to the Constitution in 2002 introduced a constitutional petition for complaints of violations of human rights protected by international treaties. The European Court has already observed on various occasions that this new procedure represents an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention (see in particular the decision on admissibility in the case of Andrášik and others of 22/10/2002).   1)   Constitutional Court practice of dismissing appeals where the case is no longer pending before the court responsible for alleged delays   Examples of Constitutional Court judgments in 2003 and 2005 illustrate a development in the practice of this court, which is to have regard to the length of the proceedings before several courts in examining the appeal. The practice of the Constitutional Court which the European Court criticised (see in particular Jakubίčka and Magyaricsová) was followed sporadically during the first five years of operation of the new remedy and was due to the legislative changes. The present tendency of the Constitutional Court is to follow the requirements deriving from the case-law of the European Court.   In addition, the Jakub and Malejčík judgments were circulated to the Constitutional Court. The Malejčík judgment was published in Justičná revue, No. 6-7/2006.   2)   Inadequacy of the amounts awarded in compensation by the Constitutional Court   On 07/11/2008, the Agent of the Slovak Republic before the Court organised a seminar in conjunction with the EUROIURIS Centre for European law. The seminar took place in the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic with the participation of the Constitutional Court’s legal advisers. Emphasis was placed on the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court in cases concerning excessive length of proceedings. Participants’ attention was drawn to the relevant case ‑ law of the European Court and to an analysis of the individual Slovak cases concerned.   On 08/01/2010 twelve examples of decisions delivered by the Constitutional Court between 17 February and 10 September 2009 were submitted, concerning appeals against the length of civil proceedings. Compared to what may be awarded by the Court in this type of case, the amounts awarded by the Constitutional Court are as follows: in five cases they vary from 25% to 42%, in five more from 46% to 74%, and in two they remain above 100%.   3)   Constitutional Court practice regarding dismissal of appeals concerning suspended proceedings   On 02/09/2008 the judgment in the Dobál case was transmitted to the Constitutional Court in a circular of the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic. The President of the Constitutional Court was asked to inform all this court’s judges of the decision in order to avert similar violations.   Five examples of decisions (III. ÚS 241/09 of 25 November 2009, III. ÚS 247/2010 of 25 August 2010, III. ÚS 221/2010 of 25 August 2010, II. ÚS 103/06-26 of 24 May 2006, IV. ÚS 177/03 of 25 February 2004) delivered by the Constitutional Court illustrate the changed practice of the Constitutional Court, which is to have regard to the entire length of the proceedings suspended before lodging constitutional complaints on undue delays in the proceedings.   4)   Constitutional Court practice to determine the length of proceedings   Four examples of decisions (II. ÚS 12/09 of 3 March 2009, I. ÚS 210/2010 of 1 July 2010, I. ÚS 108/2010 of 9 June 2010, II. ÚS 256/2010 of 1 July 2010) delivered by the Constitutional Court illustrate a development in the practice of this court in cases similar to the Dudičová case, in which the European Court held that the applicant did not have an effective remedy because of the Constitutional Court’s practice of dismissing petition where the length of the proceedings had not been considered great enough to justify the complaint.   5)   Ineffectiveness of the Constitutional Court’s orders to courts to expedite proceedings which have incurred significant delays   Among the decisions submitted on 08/01/2010, the Constitutional Court directed the trial courts - in all cases still pending (ten) - to proceed without delay.   In April 2010 a system was established for following up Constitutional Court decisions finding excessive length of proceedings and ordering that they be expedited. Under this programme, the Constitutional Court and several other authorities (Ministries of Justice and the Interior, Supreme Court, State Counsel General, bar association and Mediator) have committed themselves to joint action to eliminate the delays in civil proceedings. The Constitutional Court keeps a register of the cases which disclose excessive length of proceedings and are still pending before the courts. These cases are then closely monitored by the Ministry of Justice and the presiding judges of the courts. Disciplinary penalties may be imposed on judges and lawyers. The Constitutional Court is informed at regular intervals of the state of the proceedings in question.   As to the system of supervision of constitutional decisions from April 2010, on the initiative and conduct of the President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic the project named “Effectiveness of the execution of the decisions of the Constitutional court of the Slovak Republic in the proceedings on the complaints by natural persons and legal entities (specific control of constitutionality) in causal link with the principle of presumption of the state’s fault (general courts and law enforcement authorities)” is in place, the aim of which is to implement the execution of decisions of the Constitutional Court more effectively, prevent repeated occurrence of undue delays in civil and criminal proceedings, secure more precise conduct and supervision activity in the general courts in specific cases through coordinated conduct with interested parties, instigate the disciplinary proceedings against judges (prosecutors, investigators) following the fulfilment of the conditions – subjective delays and unprofessionalism, prevention of applying legal responsibility against the Slovak Republic on the ground of violating human rights and fundamental freedoms of applicants.   In 2009 a total of 252 judgments of the Constitutional Court became final where it found a violation of the fundamental right to a hearing without undue delays and within a reasonable time. In 240 cases the applicants were awarded financial satisfaction. From the total number of 252 final judgments concerning 252 proceedings before the general courts 109 were finally terminated. The impact of the above-mentioned project is as follows: after approximately 12 months following the period under evaluation, 43% of monitored cases have been finally terminated.   In the 1st half of 2010 a total of 98 judgments of the Constitutional Court became final where the Constitutional Court found a violation of the fundamental right to a hearing without undue delays and within reasonable time. From the total number of 98 final judgments concerning 98 proceedings before general courts were 21 proceedings finally terminated. The impact of the above-mentioned project is as follows: after approximately 6 months following the period under evaluation, 21% of monitored cases have been finally terminated.   C)   Measures concerning other problems identified by the European Court   Concerning the unfairness of proceedings in the Mučková case, on 10/10/2006, the European Court’s judgment, together with a circular by the Minister of Justice, was sent out to regional courts, with a request to inform district court judges. The judgment in the Múčková case and published in Justičná Revue No.10/2006.   Concerning the violation of Article 8 in the Turek case, the Lustration Act of 1991, which provided that certain important posts in state institutions could only be held by persons who had not been “agents” of the StB, ceased to have effect in Slovakia on 31/12/1996 (§74 of the European Court’s judgment). Concerning the problem of the burden of proof in disputes about the protection of personal integrity, Section 200i of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provided the obligation of the defendant to propose to the court possible evidence supporting the defendant’s allegations, was repealed as of 20/12/1997 following a judgment of the Constitutional Court of 11/11/1997. The judgment has been published in the legal journal Justična Revue, No 6-7/2006. To avoid further similar violations, the Minister of Justice has sent out a circular to the presidents of regional courts requesting them to distribute the judgment to all judges of these courts as well as to the district courts in their jurisdiction.   Concerning the Berkova case, in respect of the violation of Article 8 of the Convention, the Government point out that, as stated at §110 of the judgment, with effect from 1 October 2004, Section 186 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been already amended in that the period during which a person can be prevented from claiming restoration of his or her legal capacity was reduced to a maximum of one year. Therefore, there is no need to adopt legislative changes or other measures.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Slovakia have thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   Marica Pirošíková Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.