FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 63940/00 by Å tefan HODY against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 May 2003 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mrs V. Strážnická , 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 on 9 October 2000,

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 Štefan Hody, is a Slovakian national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava. He is represented before the Court by Mr J. Jurovský, a lawyer practising in Piešťany. The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. Vršanský, their Agent.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 18 May 1994 the applicant requested the enforcement of a payment order of 20 April 1994 by which a sum of money had been awarded to him.

The case was examined several times by the Vranov nad Top ľ ou District Court and the appellate court, and on 28 April 1999 the President of the Vranov nad Top ľ ou District Court admitted that there had been undue delays in the enforcement proceedings.

On 23 October 2002 the Vranov nad Top ľ ou District Court discontinued the proceedings as the debtor’s truck which the applicant had proposed to sell had been destroyed.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Article 48 (2) of the Constitution provides, inter alia , that every person has the right to have his or her case tried without unjustified delay.

As from 1 January 2002, the Constitution has been amended in that, inter alia , individuals and legal persons can complain about a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms pursuant to Article 127 the relevant part of which reads as follows:

“1. The Constitutional Court shall decide on complaints lodged by natural or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms or of human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in international treaties ratified by the Slovak Republic ... unless the protection of such rights and freedoms falls within the jurisdiction of a different court.

2. When the Constitutional Court finds that a complaint is justified, it shall deliver a decision stating that a person’s rights or freedoms set out in paragraph 1 have been violated as a result of a final decision, by a particular measure or by means of any other interference. It shall quash such a decision, measure or other interference. When the violation found is the result of a failure to act, the Constitutional Court may order that [the authority] which violated such rights or freedoms shall take the necessary action. At the same time the Constitutional Court may return the case to the authority concerned for further proceedings, order that such an authority abstain from violating fundamental rights and freedoms ... or, where appropriate, order that those who violated the rights or freedoms set out in paragraph 1 restore the situation to that existing prior to the violation.

3. In its decision on a complaint the Constitutional Court may grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose rights under paragraph 1 have been violated.” ...

The implementation of the above constitutional provisions is set out in more detail in Sections 49 - 56 of Act No. 38/1993 (the Constitutional Court Act), as amended with effect from 20 March 2002.

After 20 March 2002 the Constitutional Court delivered a number of decisions in which it found a violation of Article 48 (2) of the Constitution, ordered the general court concerned to avoid any further delays in the proceedings and awarded the successful complainants financial compensation in respect of delays which had already occurred.

According to an explanatory letter by the president of the Constitutional Court of 6 June 2002, nothing has prevented the Constitutional Court from dealing with complaints about length of proceedings in cases in which proceedings were instituted also before the European Court of Human Rights provided that the domestic proceedings complained of are still pending at the moment when the constitutional complaint is filed.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the enforcement proceedings.

THE LAW

The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention the relevant part of which provides:

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

The Government objected that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as he did not file a constitutional complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution after the relevant amendment had entered into force on 1 January 2002.

The applicant disagreed and maintained that it was for the Court to decide on his complaint. He argued, in particular, that the principal delays in the proceedings had occurred and that his application had been introduced prior to the entry into force of the remedy invoked by the Government.

The Court has found that the complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution is an effective remedy, both in law and in practice, in the sense that it is capable of preventing the continuation of the alleged violation of the right to a hearing without undue delays and of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred. It has held that the applicants in cases against Slovakia complaining about delays in proceedings which were still pending after 1 January 2002 should have recourse to this remedy notwithstanding that it was enacted after their applications had been filed with the Court or the European Commission of Human Rights (see Andr ášik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos. 57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01, 60226/00, 22 October 2002).

In the present case the proceedings complained of ended on 23 October 2002 and the applicant has not shown that he lodged a complaint pursuant to Article 127 of the Constitution, as in force since 1 January 2002, with a view to obtaining redress in respect of the alleged delays in the proceedings.

It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 3 5 §§ 1 et 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President