The concept of civil liability for damages has been repeatedly shared in theory, as in practice, and is nonetheless a concept that the justice system faces on a daily basis. However, the concept of tort liability of the state deviates somewhat from this concept, as the liability of an entity whose activity is quite complex. This raises the question of whether the assumptions of civil liability for liability are the same as the assumptions to be fulfilled in the case of State liability. Primarily, the activity of the state can be distinguished into acts that are of a governmental nature (ex iure imperii) and acts of a non-governmental nature when the state acts as an entity of civil legal relation (iure gestionis) in relation to an individual.
First, we recognize that the right to compensation for damage, in accordance with Article 26 of the Constitution, protects the legally protected interests of persons who have been affected by the performance of the service of a state body. It is a human right that differs from other such rights in that it does not guarantee the restriction of state interference with an individual but provides the latter with damages in the event of interference with unlawful conduct. However, only the situations in which the state acts as a power over an individual (in a vertical relationship) fall within the scope of Article 26 of the constitutional law.
Unlawful acts by the state include both acts and omissions, and we find that the state is liable for damages even when it omits due diligence by failing to guarantee an individual the right to a trial within a reasonable time. To the extent that the court proceedings, depending on the circumstances of the case (complexity of the case, the conduct of the authorities, the conduct of the injured party, the importance of the case to the client), last unreasonably long, the party may seek compensation for either non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage caused by the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. . The Law on the Protection of the Right to a Trial, without undue delay, provides that the State shall be held liable objectively for both material and non-material damage as a result of an unreasonably long trial.
ZVPSBNO regulates more precisely only the state liability for non-pecuniary damage, while referring to the compensation of property damage, it refers to the application of the provisions of the Obligations Code, while respecting the criteria of Article 4 of the ZVPSBNO.
Accordingly, it can be seen that the legislature, as well as the practice of the ECtHR, give trial within a reasonable time of utmost importance, which is primarily reflected in the state's liability for damages in the event of a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time.