Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 33089/96

by V. S.

against the Slovak Republic

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 4 March 1998, the following members being present:

MM J.-C. GEUS, President

M.A. NOWICKI

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM F. MARTINEZ

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 10 July 1996 by

V. S. against the Slovak Republic and registered on 20 September 1996

under file No. 33089/96;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Slovak national born in 1915. He is retired

and resides in Cífer.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows.

A. Particular circumstances of the case

On 6 October 1992 the applicant claimed compensation on the

ground that on 24 June 1951 officials of the National Committee in

Cífer had forcibly evicted his family from his house and, whilst doing

so, had damaged his furniture. The applicant submitted written

statements by three witnesses confirming that on 24 June 1951 furniture

belonging to the applicant's family had been forcibly removed from the

house in question in the absence of the owners. On 24 November 1993

the Ministry of the Interior dismissed the claim as it did not find it

established that the applicant had been evicted from his home. The

applicant then lodged his claim before the Bratislava 2 District Court

(Obvodny súd).

On 30 June 1995 the Bratislava 2 District Court dismissed the

applicant's claim. It established that on 24 June 1951 the applicant's

furniture had been removed from the house in question and that

subsequently the applicant had refused to recover it as it had been

damaged. The court further found that at the relevant time the

applicant had not resided in the house and that it had been rented to

several persons.

The District Court recalled that under Section 3 of Law

No. 319/1991 (see "The relevant domestic law" below) the applicant was

entitled to compensation only if he and his family had been evicted

from their home, i.e. a place in which they had actually resided.

Since at the relevant time the applicant and his family had resided in

a different house, the court considered that the applicant's claim had

no legal basis in Slovak law.

The applicant appealed to the Bratislava City Court (Mestsky

súd). He submitted a document dated 10 March 1952 and signed by the

president of the National Committee in Cífer by which the applicant had

been invited to remove his furniture from the communal barn within

three days. The applicant requested that the contents of this document

be included in the record of the court hearing which was held on

24 November 1995, but the president of the court's chamber only made

a general reference to it in the record.

On 24 November 1995 the Bratislava City Court upheld the District

Court's judgment of 30 June 1995. The City Court held that the first

instance court had established the facts of the applicant's case

correctly and that in the course of the proceedings before the

appellate court the applicant had not submitted any new evidence that

would permit the court to reach a different conclusion. No reference

was made to the aforesaid document of 10 March 1952 in the judgment.

The City Court held that the applicant was not entitled to

compensation as he had not been evicted from his home within the

meaning of Section 3 of Law No. 319/1991. The City Court's judgment

was served on 10 January 1996.

The applicant complained about the proceedings in his case to the

Constitutional Court (Ústavny súd). On 24 June 1996 a judge of the

latter informed the applicant that the Constitutional Court lacked

jurisdiction to review decisions of the general courts.

B. The relevant domestic law

Section 3 para. 1 of Law No. 319/1991 on Mitigation of Certain

Wrongs of Material Nature and on Powers of State Authorities in the

Sphere of Extrajudicial Rehabilitation (Zákon o zmiernení niektorych

majetkovych krívd a o pôsobnosti orgánov státnej správy Slovenskej

republiky v oblasti mimosúdnych rehabilitácií), enacted on

13 August 1991 and amended on 27 October 1992, entitled to redress

individuals permanently resident within the territory of the Czech and

Slovak Federal Republic who had been forcibly evicted from their home

between 1948 and 1953.

Pursuant to Section 3 para. 2 (b) of Law No. 319/1991, the

persons set out in Section 3 para. 1 were entitled to compensation of

60,000 Czechoslovak crowns for their forcible eviction and for the

damage to their movables.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that

on 24 June 1951 his family was unlawfully evicted and that his

belongings were damaged.

The applicant further complains that his claim for compensation

was not granted, that the courts did not establish the facts of his

case correctly and that the Bratislava City Court ignored the evidence

before it as in its judgment there is no reference to the document of

10 March 1952. He alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant alleges a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the

Convention in that his family was forcibly evicted from his house and

that his belongings were damaged.

The Commission recalls that it can examine applications only to

the extent that these relate to events occurring after the Convention

entered into force with respect to the relevant Contracting Party. The

Commission has found earlier that it has jurisdiction to examine

applications against the Slovak Republic concerning matters which are

subsequent to 18 March 1992, i.e. the date when the Convention was

ratified by the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (see

No. 23131/93, Dec. 4.3.96, D.R. 85-B, pp. 78, 79).

In the present case the property of the applicant's family was

removed on 24 June 1951 and the Commission, therefore, lacks temporal

jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's complaints in this respect.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible

ratione temporis with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27

para. 2 2(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2. The applicant further complains that the proceedings concerning

his claim for compensation were not fair and that the judicial

decisions on this claim were arbitrary. He alleges a violation of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which provides, in so

far as relevant, as follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...

everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an

independent and impartial tribunal established by law..."

The Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19

(Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance

of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention. In

particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging

that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts,

except where it considers that such errors might have involved a

possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the

Convention (see eg. No. 25062/94, Dec. 18.10.95, D.R. 83-A, pp. 77,

86).

The Commission further recalls that a court's failure to discuss

every detail of a party's arguments is not in itself inconsistent with

the requirements of a fair hearing. It is, however, essential that the

party's right to be heard is not disregarded and that his or her

pleadings are considered by the court even if this is not reflected in

explicit terms in the eventual decision (see No. 10153/82,

Dec. 13.10.86, D.R. 49, pp. 67, 74).

In the present case, the Bratislava 2 District Court examined the

applicant's case and found that at the relevant time the applicant and

his family had not resided in the house from which his belongings had

been removed. It therefore considered that the applicant had not been

forcibly evicted from his home within the meaning of Section 3 para. 1

of Law No. 319/1991, and concluded that he was not entitled to

compensation under the aforesaid Law.

The applicant appealed and submitted a document dated

10 March 1952. He referred to this document in the course of the

hearing before the Bratislava City Court, and the president of the

latter's chamber entered this fact into the record of the hearing.

Thus, the applicant's right to be heard by the court was not

disregarded.

The Commission notes that this document stated that the

applicant's furniture was stored in the communal barn and invited the

applicant to collect it within three days. It did not provide any

information about the circumstances under which the belongings of the

applicant's family had been removed and, in the Commission's view,

objectively it was not capable of affecting the court's finding that

the applicant had not been forcibly evicted from his home within the

meaning of Section 3 para. 1 of Law No. 319/1991.

In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the absence

of any reference to the document of 10 March 1952 in the Bratislava

City Court's judgment did not interfere with the applicant's right to

a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of

the Convention. Furthermore, the Commission has before it no

information that would indicate that the decision to dismiss the

applicant's claim was unfair or arbitrary.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER J.-C. GEUS

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

Menu

V.S. v. THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

V.S. v. THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

LEXI