Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicants are the parents of PERSON , who was born on DATE in a private clinic , I. Immediately after birth the baby was placed in a sterile unit under the constant supervision of the clinic ’s staff . Only its doctors and nurses had access to this unit .

On DATE CARDINAL photographs of the new - born baby , taken face on , were presented to the second applicant . The photographs had been taken inside the sterile unit by a professional photographer located on the first floor of the clinic . The clinic informed its clients that photography services were available .

The applicants complained to the clinic ’s management about the photographer ’s intrusion into a unit to which only the clinic ’s staff should have had access , adding that the new - born baby was likely to have been upset by the taking of photographs face on and , most importantly , that they had not given their prior consent .

Faced with the clinic ’s indifference to their protests and refusal to hand over to them the negatives of the photographs , on DATE the applicants brought an action for damages before ORG , under LAW , DATE and CARDINAL of ORG . Acting on behalf of their child , they claimed the sum of MONEY ( MONEY ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage for the alleged infringement of their child ’s personality rights .

On DATE ORG Instance dismissed their action as unfounded . It found as follows :

“ ... it has not been possible to establish , from the circumstances in which the offending photographs were taken , that the photographer ’s conduct was unlawful . In any event , the personality rights of the new - born baby can not have been affected because , just after birth , his psychological and emotional environment had not yet been formed and the recording of his face on a photograph can not have had any negative consequences for his subsequent development . ” ( decision no . DATE )

On DATE the applicants appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the court below . It found in particular as follows :

“ ... according to the conclusions drawn from common practice , the personality , emotional environment and mental maturity of a new - born baby , DATE , are not sufficiently developed for it to perceive an infringement of its personality rights , as has been alleged , or for its inner balance to be upset ... ” . ( decision no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicants , represented by the first applicant , lodged an appeal with ORG . In their notice of appeal they pointed out their child ’s age at the material time and referred to all the considerations that had led the court below to dismiss their appeal . Their single ground of appeal on points of law concerned ORG interpretation of ORG DATE and CARDINAL of ORG . In their view , that interpretation ran counter to LAW and to LAW . In particular , the applicants claimed that the criterion used by the domestic courts in determining whether the image and , a fortiori , the personality of an individual , could be protected , had been incompatible with the rights to “ dignity ” and to “ the protection of private life ” . In addition , the applicants argued that the criterion in question was also potentially dangerous , especially if it were to be applied to disabled children , as they might never reach the requisite level of “ mental maturity ” with the result that their image and , a fortiori , personality would not be protected .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law on the ground that it lacked precision . Relying on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , the court found that the applicants “ [ had ] not indicate[d ] in their appeal the factual circumstances on which ORG had based its decision dismissing their appeal ” ( judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Respect for and protection of the value of the human being constitute the primary duty of the ORG .

GPE , adhering to the generally recognised rules of international law , pursues the furtherance of peace and justice and the fostering of friendly relations between peoples and GPE . ”

The relevant Articles of the Civil Code read as follows :

“ Everyone shall have the capacity to enjoy rights and assume duties . ”

“ The person shall begin to exist at birth and cease to exist on death . ”

“ Anyone whose personality is the object of unlawful interference shall be entitled to demand that such interference cease and also not be repeated in the future ...

In addition , claims for damages in accordance with the provisions relating to unlawful acts shall not be excluded . ”

“ In the cases provided for in DATE , the court may , in the judgment it gives upon the application of the injured party , and regard being had to the nature of the interference , also order the liable party to make reparation for non - pecuniary damage . Such reparation may consist in the payment of a sum of money , publication of the ORG

“ Any person who , contrary to the law , causes damage to another person by his or her fault , shall make reparation for such damage ” .

“ Any person who intentionally causes damage to another person by acting contrary to moral standards shall make reparation for such damage ” .

“ Independently of any compensation due as a result of pecuniary damage caused by an unlawful act , the court may award reasonable monetary reparation , as it sees fit , for non - pecuniary damage . This provision shall enure in particular to the benefit of anyone who has sustained unlawful interference with health , honour or decency , or who has been deprived of liberty . In the event of death , the reparation may be awarded to the victim ’s family by way of damages for pain and suffering ” .

The relevant provisions of LAW provide as follows :

“ Notices of appeal served between parties or filed in the court shall indicate : ....

( CARDINAL ) the subject - matter of the appeal , stated clearly , precisely and succinctly ... ”

“ Appeals on points of law shall contain the information required by Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL , cite the judgment appealed against , state the grounds of appeal , whether the appeal is against all or part of the impugned decision , and include a submission on the merits of the case . ”

According to the case - law of ORG , appeals on points of law must indicate the substantive rule that has been breached , must show how there has been a mistake of law , in other words where the breach can be found in the construction or application of the rule in question , and must also include a statement of the facts on which ORG based its decision dismissing the appeal ( Court of Cassation , nos . PERSON and PERSON ) .


The applicant is an NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE .

He is represented before the ORG by Mr. PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

A.

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

Since DATE the applicant has been an irremovable ( unkündbar ) employee of ORG ( FAC ) and worked originally as a train conductor ( PERSON ) . On DATE he was elected staff representative ( PERSON ) for the list " PERSON aktiv " . The applicant was very active in this position and , in particular , he demanded the use of clean sheets for conductors who had to stay TIME in the trains . He made several proposals of this kind to the internal proposals department ( betriebliches GPE ) and complained that the existing pricing system of train tickets was confusing . His superiors did not take up these proposals or complaints .

As of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred from his post as conductor and worked instead as a switch cleaner ( Weichenreiniger ) .

On DATE the applicant distributed leaflets with the following contents at FAC ( Wiener GPE ) .

< Translation >

" These are the ways of the railways ! Withdrawn from the service , because I made criticisms :

Very often our railways are of no use , stairs too high , connections bad ( often there are none ) , uncomfortable ( ugly ) waiting rooms , stations too far from the towns , trains not suitable for handicapped people and so on ...

Prices too high ; rates too complicated ; soon nobody will understand .

Practical personnel are diminishing ; useless bureaucracy is increasing .

Showing off instead of comfort and the clients feel angry .

( Political ) party posts paralyse ideas ; practical and friendly co - operation becomes more and more meaningless .

I am looking for brave journalists , associations , individuals . I can offer solutions and stories !

Remark : During DATE of service I had no culpable accident , no problems with drunkenness , no troubles with travellers , and otherwise caused no harm .

How you can help me :

Tell me about problems , complaints , ideas . Inform me of groups , associations , events . Send this leaflet to newspapers , etc .

My aim :

Simple , practical , comfortable railways , that are locally constructed , with conductors and station stewards . "

The applicant distributed this leaflet during his spare time in several halls of the railway station to employees of ORG .

Subsequently an NORP periodical contacted the applicant and asked him whether it was true that he had to clean switches . The applicant confirmed this and also confirmed that he worked at ORG ( Ostbahnhof ) . On DATE a photographer at the periodical took pictures of the applicant cleaning the switches and afterwards he was interviewed . On DATE an article was published in the periodical PERSON with the headline :

< Translation >

" Since a top conductor pointed out grievances within his beloved railways , he was demoted : now he lubricates switches .... How a conductor was thrown off the train " .

After the publication of this article the applicant wrote a letter to the publisher which was published in the same periodical on DATE :

< Translation >

" I would like to thank you very much for the article about my problems . It has thereby become easier to achieve my aim to fight for simply practical railways . Although I have been threatened repeatedly with disciplinary proceedings , I will try to carry through my demand that conductors can sleep in clean sheets during TIME stays , that the price regulations become simpler and easier to understand and that the railways get cheaper for the customers . I will keep the PERSON informed about my activities . "

Thereupon disciplinary proceedings were instituted before ORG ( PERSON ) against the applicant .

On DATE ORG found that the applicant had infringed LAW ) in that he had distributed leaflets in public which were likely to harm the reputation of ORG and its employees , that he had taken a journalist in dangerous circumstances to the area of the switches , and that he had discussed internal matters in a letter to the publisher of a magazine . Under Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Regulations , an employee of ORG has to respect and pursue the interests of the service , refrain from disparaging his superiors , must keep confidential all issues relating to the service and must not publish in the media or otherwise matters relating to his service without prior authorisation . ORG ordered the applicant ’s dismissal as a disciplinary sanction .

On DATE ORG ( Disziplinaroberkammer ) confirmed the applicant ’s dismissal on disciplinary grounds .

On DATE the applicant filed an action for the annulment of his dismissal with ORG ( Arbeitsgericht ) . He requested the court to declare that his employment contract was still valid , that ORG had to re - employ him under the previous conditions and had to pay the outstanding salary . The applicant submitted that he was a staff representative and therefore could not be dismissed without the prior consent of a court .

Subsequently court hearings took place on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , the court decided to obtain expert evidence on the question whether the applicant had full capacity to act . The expert reports which answered this question in the affirmative were submitted on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

In a court hearing which took place on DATE , the parties concluded a friendly settlement . DATE , however , the applicant revoked the settlement .

In the subsequent hearing on DATE , the court suspended the proceedings pending the decision of ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) in a similar case dealing with the question of whether LAW were applicable to employment relations within ORG . ORG considered this decision relevant because the applicant ’s dismissal would not have been lawful if ORG rejected the applicability of LAW . ORG undertook to inform the applicant about the outcome of those proceedings . The present proceedings were only to be continued upon the request of CARDINAL of the parties . The parties waived their right to appeal against this decision .

By letter of DATE , ORG informed ORG about ORG findings in the parallel proceedings . The applicant received this information on DATE . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG had found that the employment relationship between an employee and ORG was of a private nature and that LAW were part of the employment contract . The matter was remitted to ORG in that case .

On DATE the applicant requested the continuation of the proceedings instituted by him . On DATE a further court hearing took place .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action on the ground that his claims had become time - barred . It found that the applicant had not requested the continuation of the proceedings in time after DATE . It was irrelevant that the final decision in the parallel case had been taken on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the applicant appealed against this judgment and on DATE the defendant company submitted its observations .

On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) granted the applicant ’s appeal , quashed the above decision and remitted the case to ORG . It found that ORG decision to suspend the proceedings pending the outcome of other proceedings had not been formulated with sufficient precision , so that the applicant may have had the impression that the relevant event was the final termination of those other proceedings and not the judgment of ORG . The applicant could not therefore be blamed for not having requested the continuation of the proceedings earlier .

On DATE , after further court hearings on DATE and DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action . ORG stated that ORG ) , providing special protection for members of the works council ( NORP ) against their dismissal , did not apply to employees of ORG . ORG found that the mere distribution of leaflets to employees did not constitute a breach of professional duties . However , in the present case the contents of the leaflet which the applicant had distributed constituted a breach of the professional duty of loyalty , because it was written in a polemical and unobjective manner and , in particular , contained an incitement to other employees to breach their professional duty not to disseminate the company ’s internal matters to the public . Furthermore , the applicant had contributed to the publication of an article by a magazine , in which the defendant company had been criticised in a polemical manner . He had not only tolerated the publication of this article but had also approved of it in a letter to the publisher . The applicant ’s conduct therefore constituted a serious breach of his professional duty of loyalty vis - à - vis his employer and justified his dismissal .

On DATE the applicant appealed . He criticised the assessment of evidence and submitted that ORG had based its finding that the dismissal was justified on grounds which had not been invoked in the disciplinary decision . He also complained that his freedom of expression was restricted on the ground that he was an employee of ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It found that ORG had correctly assessed the evidence taken . Furthermore , ORG had correctly taken into account the published article and the applicant ’s letter to the editor , as the disciplinary decision dismissing the applicant also related to those events . In any case , the applicant ’s conduct constituted a violation of his professional duties , a fact which he himself had never denied . Although an employee ’s freedom of expression must not be unduly restricted by the employer , the expression of opinion must nevertheless not impair the employer ’s justified interests . This was especially true in the case of ORG , since its reputation as a company offering a public service easily suffered from unjustified criticism , in particular when voiced by a company employee .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( Revision ) with ORG in which he complained , inter alia , about a restriction on his freedom of expression .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It found that the dismissal was justified by the applicant ’s conduct , which constituted a breach of his professional duties . As regards the applicant ’s complaint that his freedom of expression was restricted , the ORG found that the right to freedom of expression has its limits where the legitimate interests of others are impaired . It was beyond any doubt that the unqualified , disparaging statements made by the applicant in the leaflets impaired the legitimate interests of ORG .

PERSON Relevant domestic law

According to the constant case - law of ORG = GPE . DATE , DATE , TIME , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) and ORG and ORG . DATE , ORG . DATE , ORG . CARDINAL , QUANTITY Ob A CARDINAL , CARDINAL Ob A CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL Ob A CARDINAL ) , the relationship between ORG and their employees is governed by private law . It is basically an employment contract ( NORP ) under LAW of LAW ( ORG ) . There exist various regulations issued by ORG concerning the service , remuneration , pensions and disciplinary proceedings . These regulations , although some of them are published in ORG , are not administrative acts but general contract schemes which define the contractual relationship ( PERSON ) . By accepting the employment contract , an employee also accepts these regulations as a part of it .

In performing the duties under the contract , an employee is subject to instructions from the employer , which specify the manner in which the duties must be performed . Employment contracts may also provide a possibility for the employer to impose disciplinary sanctions . This element must be explicitly mentioned in the contract .

Employment contracts may provide that their termination ( PERSON ) is not subject to the general rules of LAW ( Sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , but may further restrict the right of the parties to give notice , i.e. by requiring specific or important reasons . This possibility does not impair the parties’ right to terminate the contract without notice for important reasons under LAW , i.e. dismissal ( PERSON ) or notice to quit ( PERSON ) . Important reasons for a dismissal are , inter alia , breaches of the obligations under the employment contract , in particular a breach of the duty of loyalty ( PERSON ) . A breach of the duty of loyalty may include inciting other employees to breach their professional duties , the unfavourable public presentation of employment conditions or other deficiencies in the economic undertaking , or supplying information to the press which runs counter to the economic interests of the employer ( see PERSON , ABGB GPE , GPE DATE , Section CARDINAL , Marginal Notes CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL with references to the case - law of the labour courts ) .

As regards disciplinary proceedings provided for in labour contracts ( betriebliche ORG ) , ORG in a leading decision ( DATE , CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL , Collection of the Judgments of ORG in Civil Law Matters = SZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL = ORG . DATE ) found that the ordinary civil courts ( labour courts ) are competent to decide on disputes relating to disciplinary measures taken by the internal bodies of business undertakings ( ORG ) . The courts have to examine whether such disciplinary measures are in conformity with the law and the specific employment contract . They are in no way bound by the decision taken by the disciplinary body , but must verify the facts on which the disciplinary body has based its decision , and determine whether those facts constitute a breach of the employee ’s contractual duties . It might be helpful for businesses to have internal disciplinary procedures , but they would have no influence on the subsequent court decisions , since such internal procedures necessarily lack the guarantees of ordinary court proceedings . Internal disciplinary bodies have no powers corresponding to those of the ordinary courts since they can not compel witnesses to appear or tell the truth under oath .


JIMENEZ ALONSO ET JIMENEZ MERINO v. SPAIN

The applicants [ Mr PERSON and PERSON GPE ] are CARDINAL NORP nationals , born in DATE and DATE respectively . They live in Lamadrid ( GPE ) . The first applicant is the father of the second applicant . They were represented before the ORG by Mr S. ORG , of ORG .

During DATE the second applicant , PERSON , then aged DATE , was in DATE of compulsory primary and secondary education ( Enseñanza General Obligatoria ) in a state school of GPE , a village situated in a rural area of the GPE region . The first applicant , her father , was a teacher at the school and her personal tutor during DATE .

In DATE , towards the end of DATE , ORG teacher held classes on human sexuality as part of the “ ORG ” syllabus . As a teaching aid , the teacher distributed to the pupils a ORG from a publication edited in DATE by ORG of ORG of GPE .

The booklet in question comprised the following chapters :

“ Concept of sexuality ” ;

“ We are sexual beings ” ;

“ Body awareness and sexual development ” ;

“ PERSON , pregnancy and childbirth ” ;

“ Contraception and abortion ” ;

“ Sexually transmitted diseases and Aids ” .

Those chapters included comprehension questions and basic terminology .

The first applicant , who considered that the contents of the booklet went well beyond the scope of ORG and contained actual guidelines on sexuality which were contrary to his moral and religious convictions , informed the headmaster of the school that his daughter would not be attending the sex education classes . He referred , in his capacity as parent , to his constitutional right to choose his daughter ’s moral education . The second applicant did not attend the classes in question and refused to answer the questions when she sat the final examination in the subject . Consequently , she failed the examination and had to repeat DATE . The first applicant then lodged an administrative application with ORG . In a decision of DATE , the provincial director of ORG rejected the application . On DATE the applicant lodged a special appeal for protection of fundamental rights with ORG ) of GPE . He complained , inter alia , of the lack of consultation with parents regarding the content of the sex education classes ; of the clearly moral component of the course ; of an infringement of his right to freedom of choice of education guaranteed by LAW ; of an infringement of the principle of non - discrimination proclaimed by LAW ; and an infringement of the right to freedom of religion and thought laid down in LAW .

In a judgment delivered on DATE , after a hearing in which both parties had made submissions , ORG dismissed the appeal . It held that the ORG ’s decision had been in conformity with the fundamental rights enshrined in LAW . Referring to various applicable international provisions , such as LAW CARDINAL to ORG , LAW of DATE against ORG , the DATE LAW and the case - law of ORG , the court held , inter alia , :

“ ... The right of parents to provide their children with an education in accordance with their convictions presupposes , in a pluralist society , the right to choose , that right being linked to the freedom to establish schools so that parents can choose one adapted to their beliefs and ideas . However , that does not presuppose , nor can it presuppose , the right to impose one ’s personal convictions on others or to request different treatment in accordance with such convictions .

... The enunciation of respect for personal convictions , in the form of the right to freely choose a school , derives from and is based on certain legal provisions and statements of ORG and ORG .

... LAW DATE of DATE on the right to education states :

“ parents or guardians shall be entitled , in accordance with the legal provisions :

( a ) to provide their children ... with an education in conformity with the aims laid down in the LAW and the present LAW .

( b ) to choose a different school from those set up by the public authorities .

( c ) to provide ... their children with religious and moral education in conformity with their own convictions . ”

There is , accordingly , a clear legal link between the right to choose a different school from those set up by the public authorities and the right to an education in conformity with one ’s own convictions .

In conclusion , the right of parents to educate their children in accordance with their own moral , religious and ideological convictions is not an absolute right , but must be determined in relation to the rights which the LAW guarantees to other partners in the educational community , so that it is not fair to attempt to impose a difference of treatment or positive discrimination on the basis of one ’s own ideas , or to choose or predetermine , on the basis of CARDINAL ’s particular ideas , the contents of a school curriculum in a state establishment , since the right to a particular type of education is ensured by means of the right to establish [ private ] schools ; the latter can offer a special curriculum , unlike the position in state schools in a pluralist ORG , and parents have the right to choose the type of education which they wish their children to receive . ”

The first applicant lodged an amparo appeal against that judgment with ORG . He relied on LAW ( right of parents to choose their children ’s religious and moral education ) , DATE ( principle of non - discrimination ) and CARDINAL ( right to a fair trial ) of the LAW . In a decision of DATE , ORG declared the appeal inadmissible on the ground that it was manifestly ill - founded , for the following reasons :

“ LAW recognises rights in favour of all those who participate in the education system , which presupposes that , in the event of dispute , a balance has to be struck between the different interests in issue . In the instant case , the trial court adequately weighed the various conflicting interests while stressing that state education was involved . In the context of that type of education , ideological neutrality has to be preserved , as the court affirmed ... . In the instant case , neutrality was preserved , with the result that the trial court ’s decision was neither arbitrary nor absurd and thus can not be reviewed in amparo proceedings . .... Nor has there been an infringement of the principle of equality laid down in LAW since no relevant term of comparison has been submitted in support of the appeal . ”

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has a right to education . The freedom of teaching is hereby recognised .

NORP The purpose of education is the full development of the human personality in a manner consistent with the democratic principles of coexistence and fundamental rights and freedoms .

NORP The public authorities shall guarantee the right of parents to provide their children with a religious and moral education in accordance with their own convictions .

Natural and legal persons shall have the right to set up teaching institutions in a manner consistent with constitutional principles .

NORP The public authorities shall assist teaching institutions satisfying the conditions established by law .

“ ... The LAW confers on all NORP a right to education . It guarantees freedom of teaching ... and of setting up schools , and the right to receive religious and moral instruction in accordance with personal convictions . It recognises the right of parents , teachers and pupils to participate in the supervision and management of publicly funded schools .

“ The NORP education system , established in accordance with the principles and values of the LAW and founded on the respect of the rights and liberties recognised by LAW and by PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE on the right to education , shall be geared towards the achievement of the following aims set forth in the above - mentioned Act ... ”

In accordance with the above - mentioned constitutional and legislative provisions , there is a wide network of ORG - subsidised private schools in GPE , which coexist with the state school system .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against his neighbour , PERSON , in ORG súd ) . He maintained that in DATE , with his truck , had damaged the applicant ’s fence . He sought damages and an order that P. repair the fence and refrain from using the road adjacent to it .

As his submissions were unclear , the applicant was summoned CARDINAL times for an informative interview ; invited to state his claims in accordance with the applicable procedural requirements ; and requested to pay the court fee . In response , the applicant twice restated his action and paid the court fee on DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively .

The hearing held on DATE was adjourned with a view to obtaining an expert report concerning the damage . The report was filed on DATE .

Another hearing was called for CARDINAL DATE but it had to be adjourned as the applicant did not appear .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant and PERSON reached a friendly settlement of the case before ORG in which P. agreed to repair the fence .

On DATE , by a separate decision , ORG ruled on the fee to be paid to the expert for his report . On DATE ORG ( PERSON súd ) upheld this decision on the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG for the judicial enforcement of the settlement , arguing that the way in which P. had repaired the fence did not comply with the settlement .

On DATE ORG dismissed the petition , finding that P. had repaired the fence properly .

On DATE , on the applicant ’s appeal , ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the matter to ORG for re - examination . It found that ORG had failed to establish the relevant facts adequately and that the evidence before it was not sufficient to justify the conclusion it had drawn .

On DATE ORG appointed a construction expert to inspect the site and assess whether or not there had been compliance with the settlement . The expert filed his report on DATE .

On DATE , by CARDINAL separate decisions , ORG again dismissed the applicant ’s petition for judicial enforcement of the settlement ; ruled that the applicant did not qualify for an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee ; and determined the amount of the fee to be paid by the ORG to the expert for his report . As to the merits , on the basis of the expert report ORG concluded that P. had fulfilled his undertakings and that there was no cause for enforcement .

On DATE the applicant challenged the above mentioned decisions of CARDINAL DATE by CARDINAL separate appeals . As to the merits , he argued that the netting used by PERSON was not the same as the original , and that PERSON had failed to paint it .

On DATE ORG upheld all CARDINAL decisions of QUANTITY DATE fully endorsing the factual findings and conclusions of ORG .

The applicant challenged the length of the proceedings in the above matter by a complaint under LAW to ORG ( Ústavný súd ) . In the text of the complaint , the applicant impugned the whole length of the proceedings . However , in the object of the complaint , as expressed in a standardised and prescribed form , the applicant formally challenged the enforcement phase of the proceedings only and claimed CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) in compensation for his nonpecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint admissible and granted the applicant free legal aid .

On DATE ORG found that , in the enforcement proceedings , ORG had violated the applicant ’s right under LAW to a hearing “ without unjustified delay ” , and his right under LAW to a hearing “ within a reasonable time ” . It further awarded the applicant SKK CARDINAL by way of just satisfaction in respect of his nonpecuniary damage and ordered the reimbursement of his legal costs .

ORG found no justification for the total length of the proceedings in the complexity of the case or the conduct of the parties . Moreover , it found that ORG had been inactive without any justification from DATE to DATE , from DATE to DATE , and from DATE to DATE , a total of DATE and DATE .