CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 avril 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 52 April 2003 Slovák v. Slovakia - 57983/00 Judgment 8.4.2003 [Section IV] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Effectiveness of remedy in respect of length of court proceedings Facts : The applicant filed an action for rehabilitation in 1995. In 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right to have his case decided without undue delay. However, at that time the Constitutional Court could not award damages or impose a sanction on the public authority liable for the violation. The District Court dismissed the applicant's action in 2001. An appeal is pending. Since a constitutional amendment which came into force in January 2002, the Constitutional Court can order the authority concerned to proceed with the case without delay and it may also award financial satisfaction. Law : Article 6 § 1 – While the Court has held the new remedy to be effective in law and practice, in the present case the Constitutional Court had already found a violation of the applicant's rights but did not at that time have power to provide redress. Given that any new proceedings which he may bring before that court can relate only to the period since its 1999 judgment, the applicant is not required to have recourse to the new remedy. The complaint is therefore admissible and the length of the proceedings did not comply with the reasonable time requirement. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 - The Court awarded the applicant 3,500 € in respect of non pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes