1.Introduction
The Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court regularly decide on the matter of compensation for non-material damage caused by an unreasonable length of proceedings and unreasonable delays in proceedings. Next to compensation for non-material damage caused by an unlawfully conducted criminal prosecution, this is one of the most frequently decided matters concerning the claiming of damages from the state under Act No. 82/1998 Coll., on the state’s liability for damage caused by unlawful decisions and an incorrect official procedure (hereinafter the “Act on Damage” or the “Act”).
In accordance with Section 13 of the Act on Damage, the state is liable for damage caused by an incorrect official procedure, where an incorrect official procedure includes a breach of a duty to take an act or issue a decision within a statutorily stipulated or reasonable period.
Section 31a (3) of the Act also states that a court, when assessing detriment, should have regard in particular to (a) the total length of proceedings, (b) how complicated the proceedings were, (c) actions by the party suffering detriment, (d) actions by public power bodies during proceedings, and (e) the importance of the subject of proceedings for the party suffering detriment. The act, however, does not contain more detailed provisions.
As the relevant matter is only set out in the act in general, in order to determine the amount of a claim the courts have created a detailed methodology that sets out, for example, both more detailed specifications of the conditions for granting such claim, and the factors that influence the amount of compensation awarded.
2. Purpose of Compensation
The purpose of compensating a party suffering detriment whose proceedings last, without fault on his part, an unreasonably long time, is, according to the Supreme Court, compensation for the state of uncertainty into which the party suffering detriment was placed, and in which it was therefore maintained, as a consequence of the unreasonably long proceedings. He is therefore compensated for detriment caused by uncertainty regarding the result of proceedings and the related legal position of the party suffering detriment (cf. ruling of the Supreme Court dated 25 January 2012, file reference 30 Cdo 4336/2010).
Other consequences that the party suffering detriment suffers as a consequence of an unreasonably long time of proceedings are special claims and they are compensated for independently of the calculation of non-material damage for the length of proceedings; such claims, for example, can be compensated for in the case of interference with the right to a family life as a consequence of an unreasonable period of proceedings on the raising of children, etc. (cf. ruling of the Supreme Court dated 30 January 2013, file reference 30 Cdo 4091/2011).
3. Conditions for Awarding Compensation
A basic condition in order to award a claim for compensation for non-material damage from the state to a party suffering detriment for proceedings that take too long is the unreasonable length of such proceedings, which the court always assesses individually in each specific case and in accordance with the specific circumstances of each set of proceedings, where it is necessary to take into consideration all circumstances independently, as well as on aggregate. Courts, however, for the purpose of harmonisation of provisions, usually base conclusions on a methodology established by case law, which generalises and unifies the relevant rules.
When assessing whether the length of proceedings was reasonable, regard will also be had to the criteria in Section 31a (3) of the Act on Damage, i.e. to the total length of proceedings and how complicated they were, whether the party suffering detriment, through his actions, contributed to the extension or, on the contrary, shortening of the period, in what way public power bodies (i.e. courts) contributed to the length of proceedings and also what importance the proceedings had for the party suffering detriment.
When assessing the length of proceedings, the start of proceedings is regarded as the moment the court or another public power body receives an application for the start of proceedings (an action), a resolution on start of proceedings is delivered to the party, the moment of criminal accusation or submission of an application in insolvency proceedings. The end of proceedings is then assessed uniformly, as the moment the last decision issued in the proceedings comes into legal force.
An assessment of the length of proceedings is influenced by how complicated the matter being assessed was. In this context there is an assessment, in particular, of the number of instances that made decisions in the proceedings, as well as the factual, procedural and legal complications of the matter. It is understandable that the more complicated a matter is, the more justified a greater length of proceedings is.
When assessing the conduct of the party suffering detriment, regard is had, in particular, to how the party suffering detriment contributed through its active actions, or at least attempted to shorten the length of proceedings. In this context there is a positive assessment of, in particular, proposals for the removal of delays in proceedings and requests for setting a deadline for the performance of an act in accordance with Section 174a of Act No. 6/2002 Coll., on courts and judges. On the contrary, if the party suffering detriment committed obstruction (quite evidently unsuccessful remedies, objections, etc.), when assessing the length of proceedings the court will assess such facts to the detriment of the party suffering detriment.
A no less significant factor is the importance of the matter in which unreasonable delays occurred for the party suffering detriment. The importance of proceedings is increased in certain types of designated matters (criminal prosecution, employment matters, personal status matters) and also, for example, rises the older the party suffering detriment gets, the worse his medical condition is, etc. Nevertheless, a court will obviously assess all circumstances individually in each specific case, with regard to the specifics of each case.
4. Amount of Compensation
As stated above, the value of non-material damage awarded for delays in proceedings is based on the uniform methodology of higher courts, created during the decision-making work, as well as an opinion of the Supreme Court on this matter, published on 13 April 2011 under file reference Cpjn 206/2010.
The courts deduced that the amount of compensation must correspond to the seriousness of the detriment caused; nevertheless, a reasonable amount of compensation is represented by the basic amount of CZK 15,000 – CZK 20,000 for each year of proceedings.
Decision-making practice, however, reached the conclusion that two years of proceedings are generally acceptable, and a length of proceedings of up to two years is still a reasonable time for proceedings. With regard to this fact, only half of the compensation is awarded for the first two years of proceedings.
The basic amount can be increased or reduced in accordance with the specific circumstances by up to 50%, with regard to the criteria specified in Section 31a(3) of the Act on Damage (see above).
It also applies that when determining the amount of compensation regard can also be had to other circumstances, namely, for example, whether the length of proceedings caused damage to more than one party suffering detriment, whether the decision on the matter is constitutive (establishes rights and duties) or declaratory (merely confirms rights and duties), whether evidently unsuccessful remedies were filed in the proceedings, etc.
5. Making of Claim
A claim for non-material damage caused by an incorrect official procedure by public power bodies should be made to the body that committed the incorrect official procedure, or the body stipulated by the law. In the case of detriment caused by an unreasonable length of proceedings, this body is the Ministry of Justice.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Justice will preliminarily examine the claim by the party suffering detriment, and decide either to grant the claim, to grant it partially, or not to grant it. In the event the ministry does not grant a claim in its entirety in accordance with a request by a party suffering detriment, the party suffering detriment can subsequently make his claim in court, but no earlier than six months after he makes his claim to the Ministry of Justice.
In this context it is necessary to remark that compensation for non-material damage for an unreasonable length of proceedings can also be claimed for proceedings that have not yet ended, where it is clear that a decision will not be made in a reasonable period.
As far as concerns the time-barring of a claim, the time bar will not be earlier than six months after the day the proceedings in which the unreasonable delays occurred ended. When the Ministry of Justice examines a claim, the time-bar period stops running, for a maximum of six months.
6. Conclusion
The right of a party to proceedings to have a matter decided and heard within a reasonable period is a non-negligible part of the right to a fair trial, as defined by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as Article 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Czech Republic.
The option of a party in whose proceedings unreasonable delays are occurring to claim from the state compensation for an unreasonable length of such proceedings is a necessary part of such right to a fair trial.
Courts in the Czech Republic decide on this issue relatively regularly and uniformly, and with regard to the fact that the statutory provisions on this matter are relatively curt, in their decision-making practice the courts introduced a relatively uniform and comprehensible methodology to assess what factors influence the amount of non-material damage, and in what amount such compensation should usually be provided.
If a party suffers detriment due to the fact that, during proceedings, there are unreasonable delays lasting several years, it can only be recommended that he claim compensation from the state for such non-material damage caused.
For more information, please contact our office’s partner, Mgr. Jiří Kučera, e-mail: jkucera@kuceralegal.cz ; tel.: +420604242241.