FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 41372/98 by Dušan VÁCLAVÍK against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 September 2003 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr M. Fischbach , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Mr J. Borrego Borrego, judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26 November 1997,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dušan Václavík, is a Slovakian national, who was born in 1944. He was represented before the Court by Mr L. Hincker, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Vršanský, succeeded by Mr P. Kresák in that function.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 1968 the applicant emigrated to the South African Republic. He returned to Slovakia in 1989. Subsequently the following relevant facts occurred.

Issues relating to the fact that the applicant was not in a position to have his permanent residence registered in Slovakia

Upon his arrival in Slovakia, the applicant registered with the authorities as permanently living at the address of his mother and sister in Lučenec. The house in question was owned by the applicant’s sister. The applicant submitted a written consent of his mother when registering his permanent address. He was issued with an identity card on the basis of this registration.

According to the applicant, his identity card was stolen, together with other objects, from a flat which also served as the premises of a political party of which he was a member in November 1994.

On 9 December 1994 the applicant’s sister requested the Lučenec municipal authorities to cancel the registration of the applicant as permanently residing in her house on the ground that she had never consented to such a registration. On 23 March 1995 the Lučenec municipal authorities therefore cancelled the applicant’s registration as having a permanent address at his sister’s house.

The applicant filed a criminal complaint against the Mayor of Lučence in this context. It was dismissed by the Lučenec District Police Department on 12 November 1997. The decision stated, inter alia , that following her request for the applicant’s permanent address in her house to be cancelled the applicant’s sister had found a flat for the applicant and that she had paid the rent for one year in advance. According to the decision, the applicant subsequently refused to pay the rent and again left for South Africa.

In his application to the Court the applicant stated that the authorities refused to issue him with a new identity card as he had no permanent address.

The Government submitted a copy of the records of the competent authority indicating that the applicant had reported a loss of his personal identity card on 4 April 1995. Another remark in the same document, dated 21 November 1995, indicates that the applicant’s personal identity card was subsequently found and that it was left with the applicant.

According to the applicant, he was twice refused free dental treatment, in summer 1995 and in January 1996 respectively, on the ground that he did not have his permanent residence registered in the district where he applied for the treatment. On 23 January 1997 the Social Security Administration in Spišská Nová Ves refused to entertain the applicant’s request for free medical treatment in a spa resort. The letter stated that the costs of stays in spa resorts were covered by a person’s health insurance according to the place of permanent residence of the person concerned.

On 3 October 1996 the Lučenec District Police Department refused to deliver a firearms licence to the applicant on the ground that he was not registered as permanently residing in the Lučenec district. Finally, the applicant submits that he was not allowed to trade securities on the public market, on 10 June 1998, on the ground that he was not able to prove his identity by means of a personal identity card.

On 18 January 1999 the applicant applied for a new personal identity card. He stated that his original personal identity card had been lost during the forcible removal of his belongings from an apartment. A personal identity card was issued to the applicant on the same day.

The applicant also possessed a valid passport issued by the Slovakian authorities.

In a letter addressed to the Office of the President of the Slovak Republic of 14 January 2001 the applicant stated, inter alia , that following the parliamentary election held in October 1994 he had left Slovakia for South Africa from where he had returned in March 1995. In the letter the applicant further stated that he had no place to live and that he had been repeatedly treated in psychiatric hospitals, for an overall period of approximately eighteen months, whereby he had been saved from starvation.

The documents before the Court indicate that the applicant was registered with the competent authorities as an employment seeker from 12 October 1993 to 3 October 1994, between 27 March 1995 and 9 December 1997 and also in January 1999. He was considered as a person in need and received a social allowance provided for by law. By a decision of 10 February 2000 he was granted an invalidity pension with effect from 10 November 1999.

Proceedings concerning the estate of the applicant’s parents

On 30 August 1996 the applicant requested the Lučenec District Court that “proceedings concerning an estate” be re-opened. On 13 September 1996 and on 8 November 1996 a judge replied to the applicant that his submissions were illegible and unclear. The applicant was invited to specify the subject-matter of his claim and also to indicate the name of the person whose estate was to be determined, the date of his or her death, and to submit the relevant documents. The applicant was informed that the court would not be in a position to proceed with the case in the event that he failed to remedy the formal shortcomings in his action.

On 8 August 1997 the Lučenec District Court informed the applicant that the real property in question had formed part of the estate of his late parents. That estate had been distributed in two separate sets of proceedings which ended in 1986 and on 6 February 1996 respectively. In the first set of proceedings the authorities noted that the applicant lived in South Africa and that he had waived his rights in respect of his father’s estate. In the second set of proceedings, which concerned the estate of the applicant’s mother, the District Court appointed a guardian to represent the applicant as his whereabouts were unknown. At the same time a leaflet was issued inviting the applicant to inform the court within thirty days whether or not he accepted the estate. In the absence of any such reply, the applicant would not be taken into consideration when distributing the estate. The letter of 8 August 1997 concluded that the estate in question could not be re ‑ determined as the above decisions had become final.

Proceedings against the applicant’s sister

On 20 October 1997 the applicant claimed damages from his sister before the Lučenec District Court. On 27 October 1997 the latter informed the applicant that his action was incomplete. The applicant was invited to submit, within ten days, a new action in accordance with the formal requirements. The letter explicitly stated what information the action should contain. As the applicant did not comply with the court’s request, the District Court declined to proceed further with the case.

Proceedings against the Lučenec municipality

On 7 March 1997 the applicant sued the Lučenec municipality before the Lučenec District Court. He claimed 50,000,000 Slovakian korunas on the ground that his personality rights had been affected as a result of the decision to terminate the registration of his permanent address at his sister’s place.

On 12 March 1997 the District Court informed the applicant that his action was incomplete. The applicant was invited to submit, within ten days, a new action in accordance with the formal requirements which were indicated in the letter.

On 17 March 1997 the applicant made further written submissions to the District Court which the latter considered to be unclear. As the applicant also requested that a lawyer be appointed to represent him, the court sent him a form with a view to establishing whether his situation justified granting the request. After the postman had failed to reach the applicant at the address indicated by him on 1 and 4 August 1997 respectively, he left a message for the applicant informing him that the envelope would be deposited at the post office. The applicant did not withdraw the mail.

As the applicant neither eliminated the formal shortcomings in his submissions nor submitted a claim for a lawyer to be appointed, no further action was taken on his claim.

Proceedings against the Slovak Post

The applicant filed a criminal complaint alleging that the Slovak Post had lost parcels which he had addressed to himself from South Africa and which contained a large quantity of silver coins. On 1 April 1997 a public prosecutor dismissed the complaint as being unsubstantiated.

On 16 October 1997 the applicant sued the Slovak Post for the loss of the coins before the Zvolen District Court. On 27 October and on 12 November 1997 the judge invited the applicant to eliminate formal shortcomings in his submissions.

On 18 March 1998 the District Court granted the applicant’s request for waiver of court fees. A lawyer appointed by the court to file an action on the applicant’s behalf did so on 4 June 1998. The action stated that two parcels containing silver coins and addressed to the applicant arrived at the Zvolen 2 post office on 3 May 1995. The applicant was invited to pay the tax and customs fees. He refused to do so as he considered that he was entitled to import the coins free of charge as a part of his personal belongings following his return after emigrating to South Africa. Subsequently the applicant was informed that the parcels had been sent back to South Africa. As far as it could be established by the applicant, the parcels were never returned to South Africa.

On 22 September 1998 the Zvolen District Court transferred the case to the Banská Bystrica District Court. On 14 October 1998 the latter requested the Banská Bystrica Regional Court to decide which court had jurisdiction to deal with the case. On 14 November 1998 the Regional Court found that the case fell to be examined by the Zvolen District Court.

In its submission of 16 April 1999 the defendant argued that the applicant had failed to identify the parcels which had been allegedly lost and that in accordance with the relevant regulations the applicant should have first sought to obtain compensation from the Slovak Post.

On 21 July 1999 the Zvolen District Court tried to establish the applicant’s whereabouts. On 28 July 1999 a mental hospital in Prešov informed the court that the applicant had been treated as an in-patient between 20 October 1998 and 15 December 1998 as well as between 4 and 30 June 1999.

On 23 September 1999 the Zvolen District Court heard the parties.

Subsequently the District Court experienced difficulties in contacting the applicant as he frequently changed his address. The court therefore appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant on 6 April 2000.

On 10 July 2000 the Zvolen District Court dismissed the action. The judgment stated that the applicant had not raised his complaint before the postal authorities within the one year statutory time-limit and that his right to claim damages had therefore lapsed. On 21 September 2000 the applicant appealed.

On 14 December 2000 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings. The Regional Court found that the courts lacked jurisdiction to deal with the claim as, in accordance with the relevant regulations, the applicant should have first filed it with the postal authorities.

B. Relevant domestic law

Citizens’ Stay Registration Laws

Under Section 3(3) of the Citizens’ Stay Registration Act of 1982 (Zákon o hlásení a evidencii pobytu občanov, No. 135/1982 Coll.) an individual may permanently reside for the purposes of that Act only in premises which have a registration number issued in accordance with special regulations.

Section 4(1)(2) provides that all citizens shall have the place of their permanent residence registered. For that purpose they shall submit their identity card and a certificate to the effect that they are authorised to use a flat or other dwelling premises.

Pursuant to Section 15(1)(b), an entry concerning the registration of a person’s permanent residence is to be quashed where it has been shown that such an entry was made erroneously on the basis of an invalid document.

Act No. 135/1982 has been repealed, with effect from 1 July 2004, by Act No. 253/1998 on Reporting of the Citizens’ Stay and on the Register of Citizens of the Slovak Republic ( Zákon o hlásení pobytu občanov Slovenskej republiky a registri obyvateľov Slovenskej republiky ). Section 5(1) of Act No. 253/1998 provides that persons who are not in a position to show that they are authorised to live in a flat or other dwelling premises shall have their permanent residence registered in the place of their birth or, when they were not born within Slovakia, in the place where they stay. In such cases the name of the municipality concerned shall be indicated as the place of their permanent residence.

Personal Identity Cards Act

Under Section 2 of the Personal Identity Cards Act (Zákon o občianskych preukazoch, No. 162/1993 Coll.), a personal identity card is issued by the police authority in the district where a citizen registered his or her permanent residence.

Under Section 7(4), an individual applying for a new personal identity card, e.g. when the identity card delivered earlier was stolen or lost, is obliged to substantiate by relevant documents any change in the data to be set out in the card.

In accordance with Section 6(3)(b), applied by analogy, an individual whose permanent residence changed shall, when applying for a new personal identity card to be issued, submit a certificate of registration of his or her new permanent residence delivered by the competent municipal authorities.

Section 10(d) provides that a personal identity card becomes invalid when any of the relevant information set out in it ceases to correspond to reality.

Pursuant to Section 14(1), (4) and (5), in case of loss or theft of a personal identity card and when the request of the person concerned for a new personal identity card cannot be satisfied immediately, the authorities are to issue such a person with a certificate replacing the personal identity card pending the delivery of a new one. The validity of such a certificate shall not exceed six months.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been refused free medical treatment on several occasions.

2. Under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention the applicant complained that he had been denied access to courts as a result of the courts’ refusal to entertain his actions and that the length of the proceedings concerning his action against the Slovak Post had been excessive.

3. The applicant complained that he had been forced to leave his sister’s house as a result of which he had lost his privacy and dwelling. He also complained that the police had refused to issue him with a personal identity card on the ground that he had no permanent address and that this had seriously interfered with his private life in that, in particular, he had not been provided with medical treatment. He alleged a violation of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention.

4. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant complained that his silver coins had been lost by the Slovak Post and that his property had been stolen from the premises of a political party.

5. Finally, the applicant alleged a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in that he had not been allowed to establish his permanent residence in the house of his sister.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complained that he had been forced to leave his sister’s house and had thereby lost his privacy and dwelling. He also complained that he had been unable to have his permanent residence registered and an identity card issued. As a result, his right to respect for his private life had been violated and he had been discriminated against. The applicant invoked Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention the relevant part of which provides as follows:

Article 8

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life ...

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Article 14

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

a) The applicant complained that he had been forced to leave his sister’s house as a result of the cancellation of his permanent address at her home.

The Court notes that the Lučenec Municipal Office cancelled the applicant’s registration as permanently living in the house owned by his sister on the ground that she had never consented to such a registration. In doing so the Municipal Office remedied its earlier erroneous action in allowing the registration of the applicant without duly verifying whether the statutory prerequisites had been met. In the Court’s view, the measure complained of did not, in the circumstances of the case, amount to an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.

Even assuming that there was such an interference and that the applicant exhausted domestic remedies, the Court finds that such interference was in accordance with Section 15(1)(b) of the Citizen’s Stay Registration Act of 1982 and that it was necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, for the purpose of protecting the rights of the owner of the house. 

Finally, the Court finds no indication that the applicant was discriminated against, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, in this context.

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) The applicant further complained that he had been unable to have an identity card issued as he had no permanent residence. As a result, he had been discriminated against and his right to respect for his private life had been seriously interfered with in that, in particular, medical treatment had been refused to him.

The Government objected that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as he had failed to seek redress by means of an action for protection of his personality rights pursuant to Article 11 et seq. of the Civil Code.

As to the merits, the Government contended that the facts complained of neither amounted to an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life nor could it be argued that the Slovakian authorities had failed to comply with any positive obligation incumbent upon them under Article 8 § 1. In their view, the domestic authorities had a large margin of appreciation in matters relating to the registration and identification of citizens. They also pointed out that the applicant had been able to prove his identity before the authorities by means of a passport, that the applicant had not substantiated his complaint concerning the alleged refusal to provide him with medical treatment and that, as a matter of fact, the applicant had been treated in a hospital on several occasions during the relevant period.

The applicant maintained that the remedy invoked by the Government was not capable of directly redressing the alleged violation of his rights.

As to the merits, the applicant argued that his right to respect for his private life had been seriously affected in that he had not been able to obtain a personal identity card. As a result, he was obliged to live in a “legal vacuum” and, in particular, he had been refused medical treatment. In the applicant’s view, the respondent Government thereby failed to comply with their positive obligation to ensure decent living conditions for him. Such a situation was incompatible with his rights under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention.

The Court does not consider it necessary to examine whether the applicant was required to use the remedy referred to by the Government as, in any event, this part of the application is inadmissible for the reasons set out below.

The Contracting States are free to regulate the registration of their citizens and the conditions under which they can be issued with an identity card or provided with free medical treatment. The Court is entitled to entertain complaints about the measures taken in this context only to the extent that they are susceptible of interfering with a person’s rights under the Convention.

In the present case the applicant alleges a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, essentially on the ground that he was refused medical treatment. According to the applicant, this was due to the fact that he was not able to produce a personal identity card. A personal identity card was refused to him as he had not shown that he had a permanent residence within the meaning of the relevant law.

In his application the applicant stated, in particular, that he had been refused twice free dental treatment, in summer 1995 and in January 1996, on the ground that his permanent residence had not been registered in the district where he had applied for the treatment, and that the Social Security Administration had dismissed, on 23 January 1997, his request for free medical treatment in a spa resort as he had no permanent residence registered.

The Court notes that the application was introduced on 26 November 1997. In respect of these allegations the applicant did not, therefore, respect the six months’ time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (former Article 26 prior to the entry into force of Protocol No. 11).

Even assuming that the impugned state of affairs falls to be considered as a continuing situation which only ended with the delivery of a new personal identity card to the applicant on 18 January 1999, the Court notes that, despite an explicit request, the applicant failed to substantiate his allegations that he was repeatedly denied indispensable medical treatment. On the contrary, the documents available, including those submitted by the applicant, indicate that the applicant actually received medical treatment during the relevant period.

The Court further notes that the applicant reported the loss of his identity card on 4 March 1995 and that according to the records of the competent authority that card was subsequently found and left with the applicant. The applicant submitted no explanation in this respect. The applicant applied for a new personal identity card on 18 January 1999 and it was issued to him on the same day. Furthermore, throughout the relevant period the applicant was able to prove his identity by means of a valid passport.

Finally, the Court recalls that the Convention does not guarantee social rights, such as the right to a certain standard of living or to medical care of a certain level.

In the light of the above considerations and in view of the information before it, the Court finds that this complaint does not give rise to a prima facie issue under Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.

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.

2. The applicant complained that he had been denied access to a court as the domestic courts refused to entertain his actions, and that the length of the proceedings concerning his action against the Slovak Post had been excessive. He invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the relevant part of which provides:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal ...”

a) To the extent that the applicant complained that his right of access to a court had been violated, the Government maintained that the domestic courts had not been in a position to entertain the applicant’s submissions as the applicant had failed to comply with the formal requirements laid down in Slovakian law.

The applicant maintained that the courts had proceeded with excessive formalism when examining his submissions thereby depriving him of the right of effective access to a tribunal.

(i) The Court notes that the Lučenec District Court invited the applicant to eliminate formal shortcomings in his actions against his sister and against the Lučenec municipality and instructed him how he should do so. In the latter set of proceedings the applicant was also invited to submit information necessary for the examination of his request for the appointment of a lawyer. As the applicant failed to comply, the court was not in a position to proceed with the cases. In the light of the information before it, the Court finds no indication permitting it to conclude that, by failing to decide on the merits of the applicant’s actions, for the reasons set out above, the District Court deprived the applicant of the right of access to a court enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

As regards the applicant’s action against the Slovak Post, the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings as, in accordance with the relevant regulations, the applicant should have first filed it with the postal authorities. In the Court’s view, this decision is neither arbitrary nor does it infringe the applicant’s right of access to a court.

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.

(ii) To the extent that the applicant may be understood as complaining that his request for re-opening of the proceedings concerning the estate of his parents was not granted, the Court recalls that there is no right under the Convention to have proceedings reopened and that Article 6 of the Convention does not apply to proceedings determining whether or not a case should be reopened. The Court further notes that the applicant makes no specific complaints in respect of the proceedings concerning the estate of his mother which ended on 6 February 1996.

It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

b) As to the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings concerning his action against the Slovak Post, the Government argued that the reasonable time requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been respected.

The applicant disagreed and maintained that the proceedings had been unduly delayed because of the difference between the Lučenec District Court and the Zvolen District Court concerning jurisdiction in the case.

The Court notes that the proceedings lasted from 16 October 1997 to 14 December 2000, that is three years and almost two months. During this period the case was examined by courts at two levels of jurisdiction.

Making an overall assessment of the length of the above proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Olstowski v. Poland , no. 34052/95, 15 November 2001, § 86, with further references), they did not, in the Court’s view, go beyond what may be considered reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. The applicant’s complaint does not, therefore, disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

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

3. The applicant complained that he had had no effective remedy at his disposal in respect of his complaints under Article 6 § 1. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention which provides:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

According to the Court’s case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).

The Court has above declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In respect of these complaints the applicant did not, therefore, have an “arguable claim”, and Article 13 is therefore inapplicable to his case.

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

4. The applicant complained that his silver coins had been lost by the Slovak Post and that his property had been stolen from the premises of a political party. He invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which provides:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

The documents before the Court indicate that under the relevant regulations the applicant was required to file his claim for damages first with the competent postal authorities. As he had failed to do so within the one year statutory time-limit, the courts were not in a position to entertain his action. Thus in this respect the applicant did not use the remedies available under domestic law, as interpreted and applied by the national authorities.

As regards the theft of the applicant’s property from the premises of a political party, and even assuming that the liability of the respondent State is involved, the applicant has not shown that he sought redress before the competent authorities including the courts.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

5. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been refused free medical treatment on several occasions. He also alleged a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in that he had not been allowed to establish his permanent residence in the house of his sister.

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 finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President