Search
document

Document text Analytics

POLÁKOVÁ AND MACHOVÁ v. THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

Doc ref: 30903/96 • ECHR ID: 001-4038

Document date: December 3, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

POLÁKOVÁ AND MACHOVÁ v. THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

Doc ref: 30903/96 • ECHR ID: 001-4038

Document date: December 3, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 30903/96

by Mária POLÁKOVÁ and Daniela MACHOVÁ

against the Slovak Republic

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 3 December 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs G.H. THUNE, President

MM J.-C. GEUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

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 16 January 1996

by Mária POLÁKOVÁ and Daniela MACHOVÁ against the Slovak Republic and

registered on 1 April 1996 under file No. 30903/96;

Having regard to:

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the agreement on a friendly settlement of the matter concluded

between the parties on 3 October 1997;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Slovak nationals, born in 1936 and 1957

respectively. The first applicant is the mother of the second

applicant. They reside in Lozorno and Bratislava respectively. Before

the Commission the applicants are represented by Mr. J. Maly, a lawyer

practising in Bratislava.

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

summarised as follows.

In 1973 a plot owned by the first applicant's late husband was

expropriated. In 1992 the applicants claimed its restitution pursuant

to Section 6 para. 1 (m) of the Land Ownership Act. As the Dúbravka

District Office (Miestny úrad) refused to restore the land, the

applicants' claim was examined by the Bratislava Land Office (Pozemkovy

úrad - "the Land Office") pursuant to Section 9 para. 4 of the Land

Ownership Act.

On 12 December 1994, after an examination of the area, the Land

Office granted the applicants' claim. The Land Office found that the

land claimed by the applicants had not been used for housing

construction and that there were only pathways and remainders of old

trees on it. The decision stated that the applicants should be entered

in the land registry as owners of the land at issue.

The Dúbravka District Office lodged an appeal with the Bratislava

City Court (Mestsky súd). The District Office claimed that the plot

was used as a park and that there was a water pipeline underneath a

part of it.

On 8 February 1995 the Bratislava City Court quashed the decision

of the Land Office of 12 December 1994. The court established that the

land at issue had been expropriated in 1973 for the purpose of using

it as part of a building site while constructing blocks of flats in

that area. The court held that a building site had been indispensable

for the construction and considered it irrelevant whether or not the

land served the purpose of its expropriation after the construction had

been accomplished. The court concluded that the applicants' claim did

not fall under Section 6 para. 1 (m) of the Land Ownership Act.

The City Court further held, with reference to Sections 250(f)

and 250(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, that no hearing was

necessary in the case and that its above legal opinion on the case was

binding for the Land Office.

On 22 May 1995 the Land Office dismissed the applicants' claim

with reference to the Bratislava City Court's judgment of 8 February

1995. On 22 June 1995 the applicants lodged an appeal. They submitted

further documentary evidence including statements of witnesses and

claimed that the land had never been a part of the building site. The

applicants expressed their opinion that the City Court had not

established the facts correctly because it had not examined the case

at an oral hearing.

On 26 July 1995 the same chamber of the Bratislava City Court

which had delivered the judgment of 8 February 1995 upheld the Land

Office's decision of 22 May 1995. The City Court reiterated the

reasons for its judgment of 8 February 1995 and concluded that the

applicants were not entitled to claim its restitution under Section

6para. 1 (m) of the Land Ownership Act. With reference to

Section 250(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure the court held that no

hearing was necessary in the applicants' case.

The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme

Court (Najvyssí súd). On 10 October 1995 the Supreme Court

discontinued the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants alleged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention

in that the Bratislava City Court, when deciding on their appeal of

22 June 1995, (i) had not taken into consideration their written

submissions and had failed to establish the facts correctly, (ii) had

not held an oral hearing, and (iii) had lacked impartiality as the same

judges had delivered the judgment of 8 February 1995 in their case.

The applicants further complained under Article 13 of the

Convention that their right to an effective remedy had been violated

in that the same judges had delivered both the judgment of

8 February and the judgment of 26 July 1995.

Finally, the applicants complained about expropriation of their

family's land and about the refusal to restore it. They alleged a

violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 16 January 1996 and registered

on 1 April 1996.

On 2 July 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government.

On 3 October 1997 the parties signed an agreement regarding the

terms of a friendly settlement of the case. The agreement provides,

inter alia, as follows:

[Translation]

"... the Government of the Slovak Republic shall provide the

necessary legal conditions for an oral hearing of the applicants'

claim so that all guarantees laid down by Article 6 para. 1 of

the Convention are respected. For this purpose:

a) the applicants shall file a petition with the Bratislava IV

District Office (hereinafter the District Office) for new

proceedings to be brought in their case;

b) the District Office shall re-open the proceedings

concerning the applicants' claim for restitution ...;

c) should the applicants be unsuccessful in the proceedings

before the District Office and should they subsequently seek a

judicial review of the District Office's decision, the Bratislava

Regional Court (formerly the Bratislava City Court) ... shall be

ready to decide on the applicants' action at an oral hearing in

conformity with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention."

In an accompanying letter dated 3 October 1997 the parties

stated that they were aware that in consequence of the above agreement

the Commission may decide to strike the application out of its list of

cases pursuant to Article 30 of the Convention.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

In view of the agreement between the parties of 3 October 1997,

the Commission notes that the matter has been resolved within the

meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention.

The Commission finds no special circumstances regarding respect

for human rights as defined in the Convention which require examination

of the application to be continued, in accordance with

Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant