Search
document

Document text Analytics

P.S. v. THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

Doc ref: 29024/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3690

Document date: May 21, 1997

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

P.S. v. THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

Doc ref: 29024/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3690

Document date: May 21, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 29024/95

by P. S.

against the Slovak Republic

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 21 May 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 25 April 1995 by

P. S. against the Slovak Republic and registered on 31 October 1995

under file No. 29024/95;

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 citizen born in 1950. He is an artist

and resides in Bratislava.

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

summarised as follows.

a) A former partner of the applicant did not pay the applicant for

publication of drawings in which the latter has copyright. On

20 December 1990 the applicant lodged a civil action against the

partner with the Bratislava 1 District Court (Obvodny súd).

The case was dealt with by three different judges. The

applicant considered that the proceedings were lasting unreasonably

long and repeatedly complained, inter alia, to the President of the

court concerned, to the President of the Bratislava City Court (Mestsky

súd) and to the Ministry of Justice.

On 7 February and 30 May 1994 the President of the Bratislava 1

District Court admitted that there were delays in the proceedings and

apologised to the applicant.

The action was dismissed on 27 September 1994. The applicant

appealed. On 2 February 1995 the President of the Bratislava 1

District Court informed the applicant that his appeal of 21 November

1994 has been sent to the defendant on 10 January 1995 and that the

first instance court was overloaded with cases.

On 28 April 1995 the Bratislava City Court quashed the judgment

of 27 September 1994 and sent the case back to the Bratislava 1

District Court.

On 10 April 1995 the applicant complained of delays in the

proceedings to the Constitutional Court (Ústavny súd) by way of a

complaint ("podnet") under Article 130 para. 3 of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court declared the applicant's petition admissible

on 17 August 1995. The applicant was requested to appoint a lawyer as

required by Section 22 of the Constitutional Court Act. On 28 August

and 11 September 1995 the applicant requested that, for financial

reasons, the hearing in his case should be held in Bratislava and not

at the seat of the Constitutional Court in Kosice.

On 25 October 1995 the Constitutional Court discontinued the

proceedings as the applicant had failed to appoint a lawyer within the

extended time limit. The Constitutional Court further pointed out that

under Slovak law the applicant was not entitled to request that the

hearing should be held in Bratislava.

On 24 November and 11 December 1995 the applicant complained of

further delays in the proceedings respectively to the Vice-President

and President of the Bratislava 1 District Court.

On 3 March 1997 the applicant received the Bratislava 1 District

Court (Okresny súd) judgment, given on 21 January 1997, by which the

court ordered the defendant to pay 193.400 SK and rejected the

remainder of the action. On 11 March and 26 March 1997 the applicant

appealed against the judgment. The proceedings are now pending before

the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajsky súd).

b) On 18 May 1993 the applicant lodged a separate civil action with

the Bratislava 1 District Court. He sued two banks which had allowed

his former partner to use money which belonged also to the applicant.

On 10 May 1994 the action was transmitted to the Bratislava City Court.

On 27 November 1995 a judge of the Bratislava City Court informed the

applicant that at that moment the court was examining cases which had

been introduced in 1992. It appears that no hearing has been held in

the applicant's case until now.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that

his cases were not examined within a reasonable time and that he did

not have a fair hearing before the Bratislava 1 District Court in the

first set of proceedings. He alleges that his financial situation did

not allow him to pursue the proceedings before the Constitutional

Court.

The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol

No. 1 in that the courts dealing with his case failed to ensure the

protection of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains about the length of both sets of the

civil proceedings. He alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention. The Commission considers that it cannot,

on the basis of the applicant`s submissions, determine the

admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in

accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to

communicate this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant complains, under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of

the Convention, that he did not have a fair hearing before the

Bratislava 1 District Court in the first set of proceedings. The

applicant also complains that his right to the peaceful enjoyment of

his possessions, guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1),

has been violated.

The Commission notes that both sets of the proceedings are still

pending. Thus the applicant`s claims are premature.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in

accordance with Article 27 (Art. 27) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN its examination of the complaints concerning

the length of the applicant's civil proceedings;

unanimously,

DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant