Review of ECHR decisions for 15/11/2024

The case concerns the unlawful detention of an Iraqi national in Hungary during immigration proceedings. The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (right to liberty and security).The Court determined that Hungarian authorities failed to properly justify the applicant’s detention from January to April 2017, which was ordered based on an alleged risk of absconding. The authorities did not adequately consider less restrictive alternatives to detention or verify whether the applicant’s removal could be carried out.The key aspects of the decision include:

The immigration authority’s justification for detention was inconsistent with Hungarian law’s definition of ‘risk of absconding’
The authorities failed to consider relevant circumstances showing the applicant’s cooperation and stable situation in Hungary
The judicial review of detention was inadequate as courts limited their examination to immigration authority’s submissions without proper consideration of the applicant’s arguments
The authorities did not verify whether deportation was realistically possible during the detention period

The Court awarded the applicant €500 for legal costs but found that the judgment itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. This decision reinforces the principle that immigration detention must be properly justified, necessary, and subject to meaningful judicial review.

CASE OF VALIYEV AND GARAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Valiyev and Garayev v. Azerbaijan, concerning unfair administrative-offence proceedings. The Court found violations of Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) in both cases, where the applicants were subjected to administrative detention for 30 and 25 days respectively. The decision combines two separate applications (nos. 58689/17 and 68581/17) due to their similar subject matter. The Court examined complaints about unfair trials, including lack of adequate reasoning in domestic courts’ decisions and denial of access to lawyers of their choice. The Court found these complaints admissible and determined that the administrative-offence proceedings violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The key provisions of the judgment include:

The Court’s finding that the administrative-offence proceedings against both applicants were not in conformity with fair hearing guarantees
Award of 1,000 euros to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage
Award of 250 euros per application for costs and expenses
Requirement for Azerbaijan to pay the awarded amounts within three months

The most significant aspects of this decision are the Court’s confirmation of its previous case law regarding administrative-offence proceedings in Azerbaijan, particularly concerning insufficient justification of court decisions and lack of access to legal assistance of one’s own choice. The Court referenced several leading cases, including Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, where similar violations were found.

CASE OF VOTTA RONZA v. ITALY

The case concerns the non-enforcement of a domestic court decision in Italy regarding compensation for unlawful occupation of the applicant’s land for expropriation purposes. The decision has remained unenforced for more than 10 years, which the Court found to be a violation of the applicant’s rights.The Court’s decision is structured around two main violations:

A violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the right to a fair trial, specifically regarding the non-enforcement of domestic decisions
A violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the protection of property, due to the lack of payment of compensation ordered by domestic courts

The key provisions of this decision are:

The Court reaffirms that the execution of a judgment must be considered an integral part of a ‘hearing’ under Article 6
The Italian authorities failed to deploy all necessary efforts to enforce the domestic decision fully and in due time
The Court ordered Italy to ensure the enforcement of the pending domestic decision within three months
The Court considered the enforcement of the domestic decision as adequate just satisfaction, without awarding additional compensation

CASE OF TRAPEZNIKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment concerning three applications against Ukraine regarding unlawful detention. The cases involved Igor Trapeznikov, Roman Nasirov, and Borys Kaufman, who complained about violations of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (right to liberty and security).The Court found violations of Article 5 § 1 in all three cases, primarily due to detention without proper court orders and exceeding the legal time limits for detention. The judgment specifically addresses:

Trapeznikov’s case: detention without court order exceeding 72 hours (May 23-26, 2011)
Nasirov’s case: unlawful detention from March 2-5, 2017
Kaufman’s case: unlawful detention from December 5-7, 2022

The Court awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage ranging from 1,800 to 2,600 euros per applicant, plus 250 euros for costs and expenses in each case. Additional violations were found in Trapeznikov’s case (lack of reasons for detention and inadequate compensation) and Nasirov’s case (improper treatment in courtroom by placing him in a cage while on a medical stretcher).The judgment emphasizes that compliance with national law alone is not sufficient; any deprivation of liberty must protect individuals from arbitrariness. The Court referenced its established case-law, particularly the cases of Strogan v. Ukraine and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, regarding the illegality of arrests without prior court decisions.

CASE OF GEORGAKAKI AND OTHERS v. GREECE

The case concerns the delayed enforcement of a judgment regarding land expropriation in Greece and the lack of effective remedies for such delays. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined complaints from multiple applicants who were co-owners of a land plot.The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention due to the Greek authorities’ failure to enforce a 2009 judgment of the Thessaloniki Administrative Court within a reasonable time. The enforcement delay lasted approximately 11 years, from 2010 to 2021, when payment orders for compensation were finally issued.Key provisions of the decision include:

The Court reaffirmed that the execution of a judgment must be regarded as an integral part of a trial under Article 6
The Court dismissed the Government’s objections regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies and victim status
The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,000 to one applicant and EUR 4,000 jointly to two other applicants

The most significant aspects of this decision are:

Confirmation that excessive delays in judgment enforcement constitute a violation of the Convention
Recognition that the authorities must deploy all necessary efforts to enforce decisions fully and in due time
Establishment that the lack of effective domestic remedies for delayed enforcement is a separate violation of the Convention

CASE OF MARUSHCHAK v. UKRAINE

The case concerns the suspension of old-age pension payments to Ms. Natalia Marushchak, a Ukrainian national who worked as editor-in-chief of a municipal newspaper while receiving a pension calculated under the Civil Service Act. The suspension occurred between April 2015 and April 2016 due to amendments to pension legislation.The Court found that while the suspension of pension payments from April to May 2015 was lawful and justified, the continued suspension from June 2015 to April 2016 violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. This was because the legal basis for suspension ceased to exist after June 1, 2015, when the expected special legislation was not enacted.The key provisions of the decision include:

The Court rejected the government’s argument about the six-month rule, stating that the applicant made proper use of domestic remedies
The suspension of pension for April-May 2015 was found legitimate as it served the general interest of protecting public finances
The continued suspension after June 1, 2015, was deemed unlawful as it lacked proper legal basis
The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 in compensation for all damages

The most significant aspects of this decision are the Court’s distinction between two periods of pension suspension and its finding that the continuation of suspension without proper legal basis constitutes a violation of property rights. The Court also confirmed that while states have wide discretion in implementing social policies, such measures must maintain a proper legal basis throughout their implementation.

CASE OF STUDIO MEDICO-ODONTOIATRICO DR. CRUSI S.R.L. v. ITALY

The European Court of Human Rights examined a case concerning an Italian dental practice company that was denied compensation for damages resulting from an unlawful administrative decision that revoked its accreditation with the National Health Service.The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property) because the domestic courts rejected the company’s compensation claim solely on the grounds that the administrative authority had committed an ‘excusable error’ due to unclear legislation.The key provisions of the decision include:

The Court reaffirmed that the excusable nature of an error made by domestic authorities does not justify interference with property rights, and applicants should not bear the consequences of such errors.
The Court emphasized that domestic law must be sufficiently accessible, precise, and foreseeable to meet the requirement of lawfulness.
The mere setting aside of an unlawful administrative decision, without compensation for damages sustained while the decision was in force, does not constitute sufficient redress for the violation of property rights.

The Court concluded that the interference with the company’s property rights was manifestly in breach of domestic law and incompatible with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, regardless of whether the administrative decision pursued a public interest. However, as the applicant company did not submit a claim for just satisfaction, no compensation was awarded.

CASE OF GAYBADULOVA v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Gaybadulova v. Ukraine concerning the ineffective investigation of ill-treatment inflicted by a private party. The case involved the applicant’s ex-husband causing her light bodily injuries, where subsequent investigation by Ukrainian authorities was found to be inadequate and ineffective.The Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) in its procedural aspect. The judgment emphasizes that states have an obligation to conduct effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment, even when perpetrated by private individuals. The Court established that Ukrainian authorities failed to meet the minimum standards of effectiveness in investigation, which include independence, impartiality, public scrutiny, and exemplary diligence.The key deficiencies in the investigation included:

Failure to take necessary steps for thorough investigation
Groundless decisions to close the case
Overall protracted character of the investigation and court proceedings
Investigator’s failure to note investigative actions and assess evidence
Absence of important documents including witness statements
Unaddressed discrepancies in witnesses’ testimonies

The Court awarded the applicant 3,000 euros in non-pecuniary damages, emphasizing that domestic judicial authorities must not let physical or psychological suffering go unpunished to maintain public confidence in the rule of law and prevent any appearance of authorities’ tolerance of unlawful acts.

CASE OF KARIMLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on a case concerning the prohibition of peaceful assemblies in Azerbaijan, where five applicants challenged the authorities’ decision to ban their planned public rally in Baku in December 2018.The Court found that Azerbaijan violated Article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly) by prohibiting the applicants from holding a peaceful assembly. The decision was based on the Court’s established case-law, particularly referencing the leading case of Mustafa Hajili and Others v. Azerbaijan.The Court determined that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of assembly was either based on legal provisions that did not meet the Convention’s ‘quality of law’ requirements or was not ‘necessary in a democratic society’. As a result, each applicant was awarded 1,500 euros in non-pecuniary damages, plus 250 euros for costs and expenses.Key provisions of the decision include:

The Court found it unnecessary to examine separately the applicants’ additional complaints under Article 13 of the Convention, as the main legal question was addressed under Article 11
The respondent State (Azerbaijan) was ordered to pay the compensation within three months
Interest would be payable on late payments at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points

The decision reinforces the Court’s position on the protection of freedom of assembly and the need for state restrictions on this right to be both legally sound and necessary in a democratic society.

CASE OF CENTRO DI FISIOTERAPIA DI CECILIA SURACE E. C. S.A.S. v. ITALY

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on a case concerning an Italian medical center (Centro di Fisioterapia Di Cecilia Surace E. C. S.A.S.) that was unlawfully deprived of its right to provide healthcare services due to an administrative decision in 1994. The Court found that Italy violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property) and ordered compensation of EUR 544,000 for damages and EUR 10,000 for legal costs.The decision focuses on three main aspects:

The unlawful termination of a public healthcare service agreement by local health authorities
The rejection of compensation by domestic courts based on the concept of ‘excusable error’
The Court’s determination that setting aside an unlawful resolution without providing compensation does not constitute sufficient redress

Key provisions of the decision include:

The Court reaffirmed that the excusable nature of an error made by domestic authorities does not justify interference with property rights
The principle that victims maintain their status unless national authorities both acknowledge the breach and provide adequate redress
The Court’s approach to calculating damages when precise assessment is impossible, leading to a lump sum award based on equitable principles
The requirement for the respondent State to pay compensation within three months, with interest applicable in case of delayed payment

CASE OF MALTESE AND OTHERS v. ITALY

The case concerns the decision of Italian domestic courts to reject compensation claims from applicants who suffered losses due to unlawful administrative decisions by the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry introduced a ‘hiring freeze’ in 1994 that unlawfully prevented the applicants from being recruited despite their established ‘right to be hired’. Although the applicants were eventually recruited, they were denied compensation for the delay.The Court found that the administrative decision was unlawful under domestic law, and the excuse of an ‘excusable error’ due to unclear legislation was not sufficient justification for the interference with property rights. The Court emphasized that setting aside the unlawful decision alone did not provide sufficient redress to the applicants.The key provisions of the decision include:

The Court confirmed that the excusable nature of an error by authorities does not justify interference with property rights, and applicants should not bear the consequences of such errors
Rules of domestic law must be sufficiently accessible, precise, and foreseeable
A favorable decision alone is not sufficient to deprive an applicant of ‘victim’ status unless proper redress is provided
The Court awarded various amounts of compensation to the applicants ranging from €18,000 to €32,000, plus €5,000 jointly for costs and expenses

The Court unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, concerning the protection of property rights. The decision establishes that administrative errors, even if considered excusable, cannot justify the denial of compensation when property rights have been violated.

CASE OF YERMAKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The case concerns complaints from eight Ukrainian applicants about inadequate conditions of detention in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility and the lack of effective remedies regarding these conditions. The Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in all cases.The Court examined complaints about poor detention conditions, including severe overcrowding (2.3-3.4 square meters per person), lack of proper sanitation, insufficient access to showers, poor quality of food and water, lack of fresh air, and other deficiencies. In one case (no. 14644/23), the Court specifically considered the applicant’s vulnerability due to mental illness.The key provisions of the decision include:

Recognition of serious space limitations in cells as a factor sufficient to establish ‘degrading’ conditions under Article 3
Confirmation that Ukrainian authorities failed to provide evidence contradicting the complaints about poor detention conditions
Finding of systematic problems with overcrowding in Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility
Award of compensation ranging from 600 to 10,000 euros to different applicants based on their specific circumstances

The most significant aspects of the decision are:

Confirmation of previous Court positions regarding inadequate detention conditions in Ukraine (referring to Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine cases)
Recognition of the lack of effective remedies in the Ukrainian legal system for complaints about detention conditions
Establishment of specific compensation amounts for different periods and conditions of detention
Special consideration of vulnerable detainees (those with mental illness)

CASE OF SOCIETÀ AGRICOLA MOCENIGA PESCA S.S. DI SIVIERO ALESSANDRA & C. v. ITALY

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in favor of an Italian aquaculture company, Società Agricola Moceniga Pesca, which had been unlawfully prevented from conducting its business activities by administrative decisions in 2003-2004. The Court found that Italy violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the protection of property rights.The decision addresses three main aspects:

The unlawful nature of administrative decisions that revoked fishing licenses and prevented the company from continuing its shellfish farming operations
The rejection of the company’s compensation claim by Italian courts based on the concept of ‘excusable error’
The determination of fair compensation for the damages suffered by the company

Key provisions of the decision include:

The Court established that the ‘excusable nature’ of an administrative error does not justify interference with property rights, and applicants should not bear the consequences of such errors
The mere setting aside of unlawful decisions without providing compensation does not constitute sufficient redress for the violation of property rights
The Court awarded €110,000 in aggregate damages and €10,000 for legal costs, despite difficulties in precise calculation of lost profits
The Court emphasized that rules of domestic law must be sufficiently accessible, precise, and foreseeable to meet the requirement of lawfulness

CASE OF PAVLYUCHENKO v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Pavlyuchenko v. Ukraine, concerning complaints about inadequate detention conditions and lack of effective remedies in Ukrainian penitentiary facilities. The Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 5 regarding excessive pre-trial detention.The decision addresses three main aspects:

Inadequate conditions of detention in Dnipro Penitentiary Facility no. 4, including overcrowding, poor sanitation, and lack of basic amenities
Absence of effective remedies in domestic law for complaints about detention conditions
Excessive length of pre-trial detention without proper justification and examination of alternative measures

The Court’s key findings include:

The detention conditions were found to be degrading, with only 3.6 square meters of space per inmate, along with multiple other deficiencies such as lack of fresh air, poor hygiene, and inadequate access to basic facilities
The Ukrainian government failed to provide primary evidence showing cell floor plans and actual number of inmates
The pre-trial detention period (23/08/2019 – 23/01/2023) was excessive and lacked proper justification
The Court awarded the applicant 9,800 euros in damages and 250 euros for costs and expenses

This decision follows the Court’s established case-law, particularly referencing the leading cases of Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine, which previously addressed similar violations in the Ukrainian penitentiary system.

CASE OF TSYUSMAK v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Tsyusmak v. Ukraine concerning inadequate medical care in detention and excessive length of pre-trial detention. The Court found violations of Article 3 and Article 5 of the Convention and awarded the applicant compensation for damages and legal costs.The decision addresses two main issues:

The inadequate medical treatment of the applicant who suffered from hepatitis and orthopedic problems (old non-union fracture of the right leg and broken implanted screw) during his detention from January to November 2022
The excessive length of pre-trial detention from February 2021 to September 2022, where domestic courts provided repetitive and insufficient reasons for extending detention

The Court’s key findings include:

The medical care provided to the applicant was not comprehensive and adequate, with identified shortcomings in drug therapy and necessary surgical procedures
While prison medical facilities don’t need to match the best civilian hospitals, they must provide appropriate and comparable quality of treatment to that available to the general population
Medical diagnosis and care must be prompt and accurate, with regular supervision and a comprehensive therapeutic strategy
The Court awarded 9,750 euros in damages and 250 euros for costs and expenses to the applicant

CASE OF BATUROV v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Baturov v. Ukraine concerning the violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The case involved a situation where the applicant was deprived of an opportunity to comment on an appeal lodged by the defendants in his case due to lack of proper notification.The Court emphasized three fundamental principles of a fair trial:

The proceedings should be adversarial, meaning that all parties should be informed of proceedings initiated against them
The principle of equality of arms requires that each party should have a reasonable opportunity to present their case
Each party must have the opportunity to know about and comment on observations or evidence from the other party

The Court found that the domestic courts failed to ensure proper notification of the applicant about the appeal and did not attempt to verify whether the applicant was informed about it through other means. This violated the principle of equality of arms and constituted a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. As a result, the Court ordered Ukraine to pay the applicant 500 euros in damages.The decision builds upon previous case law, specifically referencing Strizhak v. Ukraine and Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine, where similar violations were found. The Court emphasized that domestic courts have an obligation to ensure that their summonses and other documents reach parties sufficiently in advance and should record their findings in the judgment text.

CASE OF SICOP S.R.L. v. ITALY

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in favor of Sicop S.r.l., an Italian energy company, regarding compensation for losses suffered due to unlawful administrative decisions that suspended construction of their wind farm. The Court found that Italy violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the protection of property rights.The case revolves around three work suspension orders issued by the Italian Ministry of Culture in 2015, which were later declared unlawful by domestic courts. The key issue was that while the domestic courts acknowledged the unlawfulness of the orders, they denied compensation to the company based on the concept of ‘excusable error’ by the administrative authority.The Court’s main findings include:

The excusable nature of an error made by domestic authorities does not justify interference with property rights
Simply lifting unlawful orders without providing compensation does not constitute sufficient redress
The Court awarded EUR 5,000 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses

The most significant provisions of this decision are:

Confirmation that administrative authorities’ ‘excusable errors’ cannot justify property rights violations
Establishment that mere acknowledgment of unlawfulness without compensation is insufficient for proper redress
Clarification that victims of unlawful administrative decisions maintain their ‘victim status’ unless both acknowledgment of violation and adequate redress are provided

CASE OF MADZIGON AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Madzigon and Others v. Ukraine, concerning three applications related to excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of effective remedies in Ukraine.The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention in all three cases. The proceedings lasted between 7.5 and 11 years, which the Court deemed excessive and incompatible with the ‘reasonable time’ requirement.The Court assessed the cases based on established criteria: complexity of the case, conduct of applicants and authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants. Following its previous case-law, particularly Nechay v. Ukraine, the Court found no justification for such lengthy proceedings.The key provisions of the judgment include:

The Court’s confirmation that Ukraine lacks effective domestic remedies for complaints about lengthy criminal proceedings
The establishment of monetary compensation ranging from 1,200 to 3,000 euros per applicant for non-pecuniary damage
The requirement for Ukraine to pay the awarded amounts within three months, with interest applicable in case of delayed payment

The most significant aspects for practical application are:

The Court’s continued recognition of systemic problems with lengthy criminal proceedings in Ukraine
The establishment of specific compensation amounts for different durations of proceedings
The confirmation that proceedings lasting over 7 years at three levels of jurisdiction are automatically considered excessive

CASE OF GADASYUK v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Gadasyuk v. Ukraine concerning the lack of proper reasoning in domestic court decisions. The case involved a school director who was dismissed due to staff reduction and subsequently sought reinstatement. The ECHR found that Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by failing to provide adequate reasoning in court decisions.The Court’s decision is structured around three main elements: the procedural background, the assessment of the complaint under Article 6 § 1, and the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction. The Court emphasized its established case-law principle that domestic courts must provide reasons for their judgments, although this doesn’t require detailed answers to every argument.The key provisions of the decision include:

The Court found that the Supreme Court of Ukraine failed to address important arguments raised by the applicant, particularly regarding procedural safeguards during her dismissal
The Court reaffirmed that while it should not act as a fourth instance court, it can review cases where national courts’ findings are arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable
The Court awarded the applicant 1,500 euros in non-pecuniary damage and 250 euros for costs and expenses
The judgment establishes that the right to a reasoned court decision is an essential element of a fair trial under Article 6 § 1

CASE OF GATALYAK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment concerning four applications against Ukraine regarding excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of effective remedies. The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention in all cases.The Court examined four cases jointly due to their similar subject matter. The cases involved Ukrainian citizens (Gatalyak, Korniyenko, Podolyan, and Ivashchenko) who complained about unreasonably long civil proceedings in Ukrainian courts, ranging from approximately 4.5 to 9.5 years.The Court assessed the cases based on established criteria: complexity of the case, conduct of applicants and authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants. Following its previous case-law (Karnaushenko v. Ukraine), the Court found that the length of proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the ‘reasonable time’ requirement.The key provisions of the judgment include:

Recognition of violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to fair trial within reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to effective remedy)
Award of monetary compensation ranging from 500 to 2,400 euros to the applicants
Requirement for Ukraine to pay compensation within three months, with interest applicable after this period

The most significant aspects of this decision are:

Confirmation of systemic problems with length of civil proceedings in Ukraine
Establishment of specific compensation amounts based on the duration of delays
Recognition that Ukraine lacks effective domestic remedies for excessive length of proceedings

CASE OF ŠIRO v. SLOVAKIA

The case concerns a complaint by Mr. Jaroslav Širo against Slovakia regarding the excessive length of bankruptcy proceedings over his assets as a sole proprietor. The proceedings, which began on August 14, 2012, have lasted for more than twelve years and are still pending.The Court found that despite the existence of multiple civil litigations initiated by the bankruptcy administrator, the overall length of the proceedings was excessive and violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial within reasonable time). The Court particularly noted that the bankruptcy administrator was unsuccessful in the majority of disputes and contributed to delays through flawed submissions.Key provisions of the decision include:

The Court rejected Slovakia’s argument that the applicant lacked victim status, confirming that as a sole proprietor, there is no clear legal distinction between the business entity and the natural person running it
The Court emphasized that while civil disputes may influence bankruptcy proceedings’ length, the administrator’s ineffective conduct and lack of court measures to accelerate proceedings were significant factors
The Court awarded the applicant 8,200 euros in non-pecuniary damages and 250 euros for costs and expenses

The decision establishes an important precedent regarding the responsibility of national courts to ensure reasonable timeframes in bankruptcy proceedings, even when multiple related civil disputes are involved. It also clarifies the status of sole proprietors in bringing such complaints before the Court.