FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 47811/99 by Å tefan VARGA against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section) , sitting on 1 October 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki, judges , and Mrs F. Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced on 8 January 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Štefan Varga, is a Slovakian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Koš ice .

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

A. The circumstances of the case

1. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim of 16 July 1996

In 1994, while he was serving a prison sentence, the applicant concluded a contract with a limited company concerning securities which he was entitled to obtain in the context of denationalisation of State property. Subsequently, the applicant learned that the above company had not registered his title to the securities with the Denationalisation Centre.

On 16 July 1996 the applicant sued the company before the Ko Å¡ice I District Court on the ground that its representatives had acted unlawfully when concluding the contract with him.

On 16 August 1996 the Ko Å¡ice I District Court invited the applicant to specify, within fifteen days, the subject-matter of his action and to submit the relevant documents in its support. The applicant was advised, in particular, that his action should specify the decision which he was seeking to obtain. Reference was made to Article 79(1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On 21 August 1996 the applicant submitted further information to the District Court. He claimed 10,000 Slovakian korunas on the ground that the defendant had failed to comply with the contract concluded in 1994. He submitted copies of two documents in support of his claim.

On 18 September 1996 the Ko Å¡ice I District Court transferred the case to the Bratislava 1 District Court for reasons of jurisdiction.

On 21 October 1998 the latter court discontinued the proceedings. The court held that the applicant had failed, despite a prior warning, to clearly and precisely specify the decision which he sought to obtain as required by the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that he had not submitted any documentary evidence. The Bratislava 1 District Court’s decision of 21 October 1998 was the final decision on the applicant’s action.

On 27 November 1998 the acting president of the Bratislava I District Court admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint of 17 August 1998, that the Bratislava I District Court judge had not proceeded with the case between 10 October 1996 and 21 October 1998.

2. Control of the applicant’s correspondence

From 5 July 1990 to 31 December 1991 the applicant was detained on remand. The correspondence which the applicant sent to his parents was monitored by the police investigator.

Between 1992 and 1997 the applicant served several prison sentences. The correspondence which he addressed to his parents was monitored by the prison authorities.

In November 1998 and April 1999 the directors of the respective prisons informed the applicant, in reply to his complaints, that the monitoring of the correspondence had been in accordance with the relevant regulations. Reference was made, in particular, to Section 12 of the Prison Sentences Service Act and to Section 41 of the Prison Sentences Service Order.

On 21 October 1998 the applicant filed a petition with the Constitutional Court in which he alleged a violation of his right to respect for his correspondence, apparently with reference to the control of his correspondence by a police investigator between 1990 and 1991. On 15 December 1998 a judge of the Constitutional Court informed the applicant that the Constitutional Court could not deal with the case as the alleged violation had occurred prior to the establishment of the Constitutional Court on 15 February 1993.

B. Relevant domestic law

The Code of Civil Procedure

Article 43(1) and (2) provides that the presiding judge shall invite the parties to complete or correct their submissions where necessary and advise them how to do so. Where such a shortcoming has not been remedied despite the presiding judge’s request, the court shall discontinue the proceedings provided that the parties have been warned accordingly.

Article 79(1) provides that the claimant in a court action shall, inter alia, truthfully describe the relevant facts, indicate the evidence on which the claimant relies, and specify in a clear manner what the claimant seeks to obtain. Under paragraph 2 of Article 79, documentary evidence on which the claimant relies shall be annexed to the claim.

The Prison Sentences Service Act and Order

Act No. 179/1990 amended the Prison Sentences Service Act of 1965. It entered into force on 1 July 1990 and Section 12(1) provides as follows:

“A convicted person may receive and send correspondence without restrictions. The prison director or another person authorised by the latter can control prisoners’ correspondence with the exception of petitions, complaints or requests addressed to public authorities as well as with the exception of correspondence with their lawyers sent to the latter’s professional address. “

Further details concerning the service of prison sentences are set out in the Prison Sentences Service Order of 6 May 1994 (Regulation No. 125/1994).

Section 41(1) and (2) provides that the correspondence of convicted persons can be controlled by the prison director or a member of the prison staff authorised by the latter. Controlled correspondence shall be handed over to the prisoners without delay with the exception of letters with offensive contents which damage the interest of the sentenced person or the interest of other persons or institutions. Similarly, letters inciting to an offence or containing an object which the sentenced person is not authorised to receive shall be included in his or her personal file. The person concerned shall be informed accordingly.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning his above claim lasted an unreasonably long time and that he had no effective remedy at his disposal in this respect.

2. The applicant further alleges a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention in that his correspondence addressed to his parents from prison was monitored.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings concerning his claim of 16 July 1996. He relies on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which provides, so far as relevant, as follows:

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

The proceedings started on 16 July 1996 and ended by the delivery of the Bratislava I District Court’s judgment on 21 October 1998. Accordingly, they lasted two years, three months and five days.

The reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities, and the importance of what is at stake for the applicant in the litigation. In this instance those circumstances call for a global assessment so that the Court does not consider it necessary to consider these questions in detail (see, among other authorities, the Obermeier v. Austria judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, pp. 23-24, § 72; the Ferraro v. Italy judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 197, pp. 9-10, § 17).

The Court has noted that the domestic authorities admitted undue delays in the proceedings. Notwithstanding, having regard to all circumstances of the case, including the fact that, as found by the Bratislava I District Court, the applicant has not complied with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court considers that the period under consideration is not so long as to warrant the conclusion that the overall duration of the proceedings was excessive (see, mutatis mutandis , the Vernillo v. Italy judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 15, § 39 and Lammersmann v. Germany (dec.), no. 55899/00, 25 April 2002).

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

2. The applicant complains that correspondence which he addressed to his parents from prison was monitored. He alleges a violation of Article 8 of the Convention which reads as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

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.”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

3. Finally, the applicant complains that he had no effective remedy at his disposal as regards the alleged violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 8. He relies on Article 13 of the Convention which provides as follows:

“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.”

a) To the extent that the applicant alleges a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court recalls that Article 13 applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).    The Court has above found that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 is inadmissible. For similar reasons, in respect of this complaint the applicant did not have an “arguable claim” and Article 13 is therefore inapplicable to this part of the application.

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) To the extent that the applicant complains that he had no effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

For these reasons, the Court

Decides , by a majority, to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the alleged violation of his right to respect for his correspondence and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect;

Declares , unanimously, the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Françoise Elens-Passos Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar President