FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 77155/01 by Å tefan VALACH and Others against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 1 March 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza , President, Lech Garlicki , Ljiljana Mijović , David Thór Björgvinsson , Ján Šikuta , Päivi Hirvelä , Mihai Poalelungi , judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 November 2001,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the reply submitted by several applicants ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applica tion was introduced by sixty-eight Slovak nationals whose particulars appear in the appendix. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by M s M. Piro šíková, their Agent, and M s M. Bálintová, Co -Agent.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The application related to the fact that members of the Slovak Union of Gardeners were allowed to use land of which the applicants were owners, and that under the relevant law the gardeners were entitled to acquire the ownership of that land under circumstances which the applicants considered to be unjust. The factual and legal background of the situation as a whole is set out in Urbárska o bec Trenčianske Biskupice v. Slovakia , no. 74258/01, § § 7-13 and 40-80 , ECHR 2007 ‑ ... (extracts) .

To the extent that it can be established from the documents submitted to the Court, following the adoption of Act no. 64/1997, proceedings were brought with a view to transferring the ownership of the applicants ’ land to the gardeners in accordance with sections 7 et seq. of that Act. The outcome of those proceedings is unknown.

On 11 May 2000 the applicants complained to the Constitutional Court that Act no. 64/1997 ran contrary to the constitutional protection of ownership rights.

On 7 July 2000 a constitutional judge informed the applicants that individuals lacked standing to bring proceedings to examine whether a law conformed to the Constitution.

On 10 June 2005 the District Land Office in Ž ilina delivered a decision determining the pecuniary compensation to which, inter alia , Mr M. Čičkánik (applicant indic ated in point 66 of the appendix) was entitled under Act no. 64/1997.

On 25 April 2006 the Ž ilina Regional Court quashed that decision and returned the case to the administrative authority. No information has been provided about subsequent proceedings.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain ed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they were obliged to lease their land at a price which wa s disproportionately low, that the transfer of the land to individual gardeners under Act no. 64/1997 was not in the general interest , and that an excessive burden was thereby imposed on them.

THE LAW

The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the compulsory lease of their land and its transfer to individual gardeners under the relevant provisions of Act no. 64/1997. They submitted, through Mr Å . Valach, a single application form signed by all the applicants, which was accompanied by their particulars.

1. Proceedings before the Court

On 15 March 2005 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court.

The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 12 August 2005 . They argued that the applicants had failed to specify the land in issue. The Government were therefore unable to express an opinion on the case.

On 12 October 2005 Mr Å . Valach submitted a reply on behalf of the applicants, arguing that neither the lease nor the transfer of the property under the conditions set out in Act no. 64/1997 were in the public interest or proportionate.

In response to the above letter the Government reiterated that the applicants had failed to submit information permitting them to identify the plots of land in issue and to express an opinion on the case of the applicants.

On 19 July and 24 October 2006 and on 16 March 2007 the Court ’ s Registry informed Mr Valach, with whom all correspondence in the case had been conducted until then, of the President ’ s instruction that the applicants should appoint an advocate to represent them before the Court. Reference was made to the complexity of the point in issue, the number of applicants and also to the conditions under which legal aid can be granted in proceedings before the Court. The applicants ’ attention was drawn to Rule 36 § 4 (a), 44B, 44C and 44E of the Rules of Court.

Mr Valach informed the Court that, due to the other applicants ’ reaction to the above request, he was no longer in a position to co-ordinate the action of the applicants in the case.

On 28 June 2007 and 29 September 2008 the Registry of the Court sent letters to all the applicants individually by registered mail. The applicants were informed of the above developments and of the possibility of applying for legal aid under the Council of Europe ’ s legal-aid scheme. They were asked to indicate whether they wished to pursue the application. The applicants ’ attention was drawn to the fact that in the absence of a reply the Court might decide on the admissibility of the case on the basis of the documents available or, in the alternative, it might conclude that they were no longer interested in pursuing the application and strike it out of its list under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

In their reply, eleven applicants confirmed that they wished to pursue the application (applicants listed in the appendix under points 58–68).

As to the remaining applicants, they either submitted no reply (applicants whose particulars appear in points 1-28 of the appendix), stated that they did not wish to pursue the case (applicants indicated in points 29-45 of the appendix), failed to collect the letter (applicants appearing in points 49 and 50 of the appendix) or refused receipt of it (applicant indicated in point 51 of the appendix).

The letters sent to the applicants indicated in points 46-48 of the appendix were returned with a remark that the person was unknown at the address. The letters sent to the applicants whose particulars are set out in points 52-57 of the appendix were returned with an indication that the addressee had died.

On 4 November 2008 the Court invited the parties to submit, by 16 January 2009, further observations in writing. In particular, the parties were asked to comment on the position in the case in view of the conclusion which the Court had reached in the Urbárska o bec Trenčianske Biskupice v. Slovakia judgment of 27 November 2007.

The eleven applicants who had indicated their wish to pursue the application were asked, under Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 of the Rules of Court, to appoint a lawyer to represent them in the proceedings before 5 January 2009.

The three applicants whose particulars are indicated in points 66-68 of the appendix applied for legal aid and submitted the relevant documents in support of that request. On 18 November 2008 the President of the Chamber granted their request. They did not appoint a lawyer or any other person to represent them.

On 8 December 2008 the Government, in reply to the above additional question put by the Court on 4 November 2008, indicated that they were still unable to submit the required information as the applicants had not specified the plots of land owned by them.

On 9 January 2009 Mr Šedo and Mrs Šedová , two of the applicants who had been granted legal aid, replied that the gardeners had benefited from their land unjustly and that they sought redress before the Court in that respect. On 10 January 2009, Mr Čičkánik, the third applicant to whom legal aid had been granted indicated that he had not been duly compensated for his land, which had a surface area of 1,283 square metres, and that he had been discriminated against.

In a reply of 5 February 2009 the Government observed that in their submissions of 9 and 10 January 2009 the above three applicants had not specified the plots of land or the proceedings complained of.

In reaction to the Government ’ s comments of 5 February 2009 Mr Čičkánik, on 20 February 2009, sent to the Court a copy of the decision of the District Land Office in Ž ilina of 10 June 2005 , the Žilina Regional Court ’ s judgment of 25 April 2006 (see the last two paragraphs in Facts above) and a copy of a lease contract concluded on 30 January 2005.

The remaining eight applicants who had confirmed their wish to pursue the application submitted no comment. None of them authorised a lawyer to represent him or her in compliance with the above instruction. Seven of them asked the Court to appoint an advocate to represent them in the proceedings.

2. The Court ’ s position

Article 37 § 1 of the Convention provides:

“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or ...

(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

a) As regards the eleven applicants who confirmed their wish to pursue the application, the Court notes that, despite repeated requests indicating the nature of the information required and information about the possibility of applying for legal aid, they failed to substantiate the application in a manner permitting the Court to examine their complaint. In particular, with the exception of Mr Čičkánik , the applicants concerned neither specified in a clear manner the plots of land which they owned and which were affected by proceedings under Act no. 64/1997, nor submitted information about the progress and, as the case may be, the outcome of such proceedings or the authorities before which the proceedings were pending.

As to the case of Mr Čičkánik, he submitted, on 20 February 2009, a copy of the Ž ilina Regional Court ’ s judg ment of 25 April 2006 by which the proceedings under Act no. 64/1997 were remitted to the District Land Office in Žilina. No infor mation has been provided about further developments.

Nor did Mr Čičkánik submit a reply to the specific questions which the Court had put to the parties on 4 November 2008. In this respect the Court notes that all the applicants had been requested under Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 of the Rules of Court to appoint an advocate to represent them in the proceedings before the Court and that the President of the Chamber decided to grant legal aid to Mr Čičkánik for that purpose. However, the latter failed to submit observations on the points in issue with the assistance of a qualified representative.

In these circumstances, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court cannot but conclude that as regards the eleven applicants mentioned above their complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

b) As indicated above, the Registry ’ s letters sent to six other applicants were returned with an indication that the addressee had died. The Court received no information from their next of kin indicating that they wished to pursue the application in the late applicants ’ stead. It therefore considers that a further examination of the case in respect of those applicants is not justified within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

The remaining applicants either submitted no reply to the Registry ’ s letter sent by registered mail, stated that they did not wish to pursue the application, failed to collect the letter or refused receipt of it. In the case of three applicants the letters were returned with a remark that the person was unknown at the address, notwithstanding that at the moment of the registration of the application the applicants were advised to inform the Court of any change in their address.

In respect of this category of applicants the Court concludes that they do not intend to pursue the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

T he Court further finds no reasons of a general character, affecting respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto , which require further examination of the present application by virtue of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in fine .

For these reasons, the Cou rt unanimously

Declares inadmissible the application as far as it concerns the complaints of the applicants indicated in points 58-68 of the appendix;

Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President

Appendix

List of applicants