FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 70484/01 by Emili á n KOZMA against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 January 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr G. Bonello , Mr K. Traja , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki, Mr J. Å ikuta, and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 May 2001,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Emili á n Kozma, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Košice.

The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Poláčková .

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

The applicant is a physician and at the relevant time he was employed at the Institute of Experimental Medicine established within the Faculty of Medicine of the P.J. Šafárik University in Košice.

In 1995 the applicant applied for postgraduate study at the above university. He took the examination on 24 November 1995 . Subsequently he was informed orally that he had succeeded and that a formal notification would be sent to him. However, unlike the other candidates, the applicant received no notification. Despite this fact he was told to take a language examination for the purpose of undertaking the postgraduate course. The applicant passed the exam on 6 June 1996 .

There were numerous changes in the responsible officials and the applicant made several attempts to clarify the position as regards his status as a postgraduate student.

In a letter of 30 July 1999 the dean of the medical faculty admitted that his predecessor had failed to notify the applicant in writing of the outcome of the examination held in 1995. The applicant thus could not start his postgraduate study. He had done so de facto unlawfully in that he had taken a language exam in 1996. The dean proposed to resolve the issue in the following way: (i) the dean would issue a certificate according to which the applicant had been admitted as an external postgraduate student with effect from 25 November 1995, (ii) the applicant would ask the dean in writing to suspend his postgraduate study from 6 June 1996 (when the applicant had passed the language exam), (iii) the dean would grant such a request it being understood that the applicant would resume his study as from 7 June 1999, and that the time limit for terminating his study would be prolonged until 31 December 2003.

On 2 November 1999 the applicant replied to the dean that he considered a retroactive suspension of his study to be contrary to the law.

On 5 November 1999 the dean issued a certificate stating that the applicant had been admitted as an external postgraduate student as from 25 November 1995 .

On 22 December 1999 the dean informed the applicant that, in accordance with amended legislation, his postgraduate programme would be transformed into a doctoral programme with effect from 1 January 2000 .

On 2 February 2000 the applicant, in reply to a request, specified the proposed topic of his study, namely “Methods of rendering more effective the development process of biological and biotechnological products in medicine”.

On 4 April 2000 the Head of the Institute of Experimental Medicine informed the applicant that the above topic was unclear and too broadly formulated. The experts whom the Head of the Institute had consulted had confirmed the view that the topic proposed by the applicant did not disclose even the approximate aim of the doctoral research. The applicant was invited to submit a sufficiently specific topic of his doctoral research work within one week. The letter stated that the Head of the Institute had repeatedly consulted the applicant on the matter as well as several researchers, and that he was interested in supporting the applicant in his research work and ensuring his professional development.

On 12 April 2000 the applicant replied that the relevant regulations did not exclude the proposed topic as the topic for his doctoral study. He considered that topic to be “strictly strategic and pragmatic” in view of the global situation. The applicant expressed the view that the persons responsible for his doctoral study should specify any amendments which needed to be made to his proposal. In conclusion the applicant expressed the view that he had complied with the request for specification of the topic of his doctoral research programme.

On 9 June 2000, upon an agreement between the applicant and his employer, the applicant ’ s contract of employment was terminated for redundancy with effect from 31 August 2000.

On 24 August 2000 the applicant complained to the Minister of Education that he had been prevented from continuing the postgraduate study as the topic which he had proposed had not been accepted without any relevant reasons being given and that he had been subsequently dismissed from his job.

On 12 October 2000 the Director of the Supervision Department at the Ministry of Education dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint as being unsubstantiated. The letter stated, inter alia , that, despite the fact that he had not received a written notification, the applicant had been admitted as a postgraduate student in 1995 and he had started his studies in that he had passed a language exam in 1996. The applicant had not, therefore, been prevented from pursuing his studies. At meetings held in the institute where he had worked, the applicant had been regularly informed about the issues raised in his complaint.

The letter further stated that, in the general appraisal of the teaching and research workers in the past five-year period, the applicant had scored 8.5 points, whereas the average score within his institute was 98.5 points. According to the letter, the applicant had been reminded to respect discipline. He had been informed that his working results were insufficient and that the applicant ’ s requirements as regards his job exceeded what the institute could provide. The employer had warned the applicant that he could be made redundant.

On 25 October 2000 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Minister of Education in which he challenged the above conclusion of the Supervision Department as being erroneous. He argued, in particular, that the officials concerned had failed to notify him in time of his admission as a postgraduate student and that they had not co-operated with him with a view to determining the topic of his work in that context, thus preventing him from carrying out his studies.

On 7 December 2000 the applicant ’ s tutor submitted a comment on the applicant ’ s case. According to the statement, the applicant had insisted on a topic which, in the tutor ’ s view, was not suitable as it focused exclusively on the technical resolution of the point in issue without taking into account the scientific and research aspects covered by the applicant ’ s programme. The applicant had not informed his superiors whether and how he had taken the tutor ’ s remarks into account.

In a reply of 11 December 2000 the Director of the Supervision Department of the Ministry of Education stated that no reason had been found for reviewing the above conclusion on the applicant ’ s complaint.

In a notification dated 31 March 2004 the dean of the medical faculty informed the applicant that the management of the faculty, at its meeting held on 10 February 2004, had terminated the applicant ’ s external doctoral study with effect from 31 March 2004 on the ground that the time-limits applicable to doctoral studies had not been complied with.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained that his right to education guaranteed under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 had been violated.

THE LAW

The Court observes that by a letter of 29 November 2005 the applicant was invited to reply, by 13 January 2006, to the observations of the Government on the above application.

By a registered letter of 1 March 2006 the Registrar of the Fourth Section informed the applicant that the period allowed for submission of his observations in reply had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant ’ s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provides that:

“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...

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.”

The Court has received no reply to the above letters.

As the postal authorities did not confirm whether the Registry ’ s letter of 1 March 2006 had reached the addressee, the applicant was invited, in another registered letter of 18 September 2006, to inform the Court whether in the above circumstances he wished to pursue the application.

The letter was returned to the Court, unopened, on 19 October 2006. The stamps and handwritten remarks on the envelope indicate that, due to his absence, the post had not managed to deliver the letter to the applicant at his address on 22 September 2006, and that a notice had been left for him informing him he could pick the letter up at the post office. As the applicant had not come to the post office, the post sent the envelope back to the sender on 13 October 2006.

In November 2006 the Court ’ s Registry attempted to contact the applicant by fax at the number which the applicant had indicated in the application form. The attempts failed, apparently due to the fact that the number was not in service.

Upon registration of the application, on 18 June 2001, the applicant had been asked to inform the Court of any change in his address.

In the light of the above, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. The Court also considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.

Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should therefore no longer be applied and the application should be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President