The case concerned Ms Berková’s complaint regarding her legal capacity, which was restricted on the grounds of a mental disorder. On 14 April 1993 the District Court in Poprad restricted the applicant’s legal capacity in that she was not allowed to act on her own before public authorities. The court relied on the opinion of several experts concluding that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder as a result of paranoid development of her personality. The applicant suffered from the delusion that she was being persecuted and on that ground she had made a considerable number of complaints and other submissions. The applicant’s mother was appointed guardian for the purpose of the proceedings concerning the limitation of the applicant’s legal capacity. After the refusal of her mother to act as her guardian, various others were nominated until one was finally appointed in 1998.

On a suggestion in 1998 that the applicant’s full legal capacity be restored to her, the District Court appointed experts to furnish an opinion on the applicant’s mental health. Their report suggested that The District Court also heard a guardian whom it had appointed to represent the applicant in the proceedings. The guardian did not propose restoring full legal capacity to the applicant as her health had not improved.  Relying on the expert opinion the District Court decided not to hear the applicant.

In its judgment of 9 November 1999 the District Court referred in detail to the applicant’s situation and behaviour. With reference to the experts’ conclusion it held that numerous abusive complaints, submissions and appeals which the applicant had made proved that her personality disorder persisted, resulting in her querulous behaviour. The court therefore decided not to restore full legal capacity to the applicant.  As the applicant’s mental disorder was chronic and since it could not be expected that her health would improve, the court decided that the applicant was not to be allowed to make a fresh request for full legal capacity to be restored to her for three years from the date of the judgment. This was in conformity with Article 186 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

After appeals on behalf of the applicant by the General Prosecutor, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law on 19 December 2000. It held that the first-instance court had considered all relevant facts, including the applicant’s submissions.

The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 because Ms Berková had been prevented for too long from applying to have her legal capacity restored. The Court’s reasoning was the following: 

Prohibiting the applicant from making a fresh application for full legal capacity for three years constituted an interference with her right to respect for her private life. The Court agreed with the Government that such interference was in accordance with the law, namely Article 186 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure as in force at the relevant time. It also accepted that this interference pursued the legitimate aim within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 8 of protecting the rights of the applicant, who was suffering from mental illness, as well as the rights of others.

As regards the question whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court noted that, on the one hand, the District Court’s decision relied on the experts’ opinion that the applicant was suffering from a chronic mental illness and that a significant improvement in her health was unlikely in the near future.

On the other hand, however, the Court found it relevant that the restriction in question was challenged by the General Prosecutor, that views had been expressed in Slovakia that the three-year period was excessively long and capable of seriously affecting such a person’s human rights. The Court also took into account that the relevant law was amended, with effect from 1 October 2004, to reduce that period to a maximum of one year. This did not affect the position in the case under consideration.

The Court concluded that the restriction in issue constituted a serious interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life while at the same time failed to see any social need sufficiently pressing to justify that interference as being proportionate to the aim pursued and necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 8. This restriction thus failed under the proportionality test. The Court therefore found a violation of Article 8 in prohibiting the applicant from re-applying for restitution of full legal capacity for a period of three years.

Ms Berková also complained in particular about the excessive length of proceedings concerning her divorce, division of matrimonial property and maintenance.

She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 in respect of the excessive duration of the three sets of proceedings at issue. The Court considered that it has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case. Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considered that the length of the proceedings under consideration was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.