This case concerns an application made by a Slovak National, Ms Vlasta Chrapkova, against the Slovak Republic on the grounds that the Constitutional Court had unnecessarily delayed the claimant’s application for compensation – under the Land Ownership Act 1991 – following the transfer of agricultural property and livestock to a co-operative in 1951.

Ms Vlasta Chrapkova made the compensation application on December 31, 1992 but in the following twelve years no hearings were ever held with a view to taking evidence and establishing the facts relevant for the determination of her action.  Consequently on December 30, 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay.

The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 100,000 (the equivalent of EUR 2,574 at that time) to the applicant as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s costs.

The applicant then brought the present action in the ECHR, claiming that the duration of the proceedings viewed by the Constitutional Court were not within the ‘reasonable time’ limit, found under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

She also claimed that the amount of just satisfaction granted by the Constitutional Court was disproportionately low in the circumstances of the case.

The Government, in its defence, submitted that the extended examination procedure was due to the immense factual and legal complexity of the case. In addition, it was their claim that the amount of just satisfaction which the applicant had been awarded was relatively high, thus offering a justification for their delayed actions.

The ECHR disagreed on both counts. It held that the length of the proceedings up to the Constitutional Court’s finding was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement, thus there was a breach of Article 6 § 1. It also found that in view of established case-law the amount awarded by the Constitutional Court was insufficient redress. It thus applied Article 41 of the Convention and awarded a further EUR 2,380 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.  Article 41 reads as follows:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”