FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 44965/98 by Dagmar MOLNÁROVÁ and Alžbeta KOCHANOVÁ against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 9 July 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää ,

Mrs E. Palm , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr M. Fischbach , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr R. Maruste , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 21 January 1998 and registered on 15 December 1998,

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 partial decision of 6 July 2000,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mrs Dagmar Molnárová and Mrs Alžbeta Kochanová, are Slovakian nationals, who were born in 1941 and 1930 respectively. They live in Košice and Michalovce respectively . 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 12 August 1991 the applicants claimed compensation, under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act, for property which had been taken away from their late father in 1950. As the administrative authorities failed to grant their claim, the applicants lodged an action with the Michalovce District Court ( Okresn ý súd ) on 23 September 1992. On 20 January 1993 the District Court submitted the action to the defendant for comments. On 6 April 1993 the defendant authority submitted its observations in reply.

On 28 April 1993 the District Court adjourned the case and requested the applicants to substantiate their claim. On 24 May 1993 the applicants submitted further documents. They did not reply to the court’s request on which provisions of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act their action was based. The applicants submitted this information on 3 September 1993.

On 16 September 1993 the District Court heard the applicants.

On 5 October 1993 the judge inspected the real property in question in the presence of the parties. She also heard a witness.

On 8 November 1993 the applicants withdrew a part of their action. On 15 December 1993 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the relevant claims. This decision became final on 11 February 1994.

A hearing was held on 14 April 1994.

On 27 April 1994 the judge visited the property in question and heard two witnesses and an expert.

On 11 May 1994 the applicants proposed that the court hear three witnesses. In September 1994 they requested the court not to proceed with the case between 20 October and 1 November 1994 as their lawyer was abroad.

On 7 March 1995 the District Court heard three witnesses and invited the parties to explore the possibility of settling the case. On 18 May 1995 the applicants informed the judge that they were not opposed to her intention to order an expert opinion with a view to evaluating the property should the attempt to settle the case fail. On 29 June 1995 the defendant ministry refused to accept the applicants’ claims.

On 11 October 1995 the Michalovce District Court dismissed the action. The judgment was served on the parties on 1 and 4 December 1995 respectively.

On 15 December 1995 the applicants appealed. The defendant authority submitted its observations in reply on 29 January 1996, and on 20 February 1996 the case file was submitted to the appellate court.

On 6 March 1996 the applicants submitted further arguments to the appellate court.

On 7 October 1997 the Košice Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) upheld the first instance judgment.

On 7 January 1998 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. They challenged the lower courts’ conclusions and complained that the Regional Court had not appointed an expert with a view to establishing the value of the property.

On 21 April 1998 the Supreme Court ( Najvyšší súd ) rejected the appeal on points of law. It found that the refusal to order an expert opinion was not a relevant reason for quashing the second instance judgment and held that it lacked jurisdiction to review its merits.

B. Relevant domestic law

State Administration of Courts Act of 1992

According to Section 17 (1) of the State Administration of Courts Act ( Zákon o sídlach a obvodoch súdov Slovenskej republiky, Å¡tátnej správe súdov, vybavovaní sÅ¥ažností a o voľbách prísediacich ) No. 80/1992, any natural person or corporation can turn to State authorities responsible for the administration of courts (the Ministry of Justice, the president and vice ‑ president of the Supreme Court and the presidents and vice-presidents of Regional and District Courts) with complaints in cases of, inter alia , delayed proceedings.

According to Sections 24 - 27, the responsible authority is required to establish all relevant facts and, if necessary, hear the persons concerned. Examination of the complaint is to be terminated within two months and the complainant is to be informed in writing of the conclusion. When the complaint has been dealt with by the president of a District Court, the person concerned can request a review of the conclusion by the president of the appropriate Regional Court.

Section 16 provides that, in cases when the authority in charge of State administration of courts finds that a judge caused delays in proceedings by disrespecting his or her legal obligations, it shall proceed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Disciplinary Liability of Judges Act ( Zákon o kárnej zodpovednosti sudcov ).

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning their case lasted an unreasonably long time.

THE LAW

The applicants complain about the length of the proceedings concerning their claim. They  allege a violation of 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 ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Government contend that the applicants failed to exhaust domestic remedies as they did not complain about the length of the proceedings pursuant to the State Administration of Courts Act of 1992.

The applicants submitted no comments on this issue.

The Court notes that Section 17 (1) of the State Administration of Courts Act provides for the possibility of submitting a complaint about, inter alia , delays in proceedings to an authority which is hierarchically superior, from the point of view of the administration of courts, to the judge dealing with the case. Such a complaint procedure is in fact by way of information submitted to the supervisory authority with the request to make use of its powers if it sees fit to do so. If proceedings are taken upon this request, they take place exclusively between the supervisory organ and the judge concerned. If necessary, the complainant may be heard, but he or she will not be a party to these proceedings. Under the State Administration of Courts Act of 1992, the complainant is only entitled to obtain information about the way in which the supervisory authority has dealt with his hierarchical appeal. As a result, a hierarchical appeal does not give the person employing it a personal right to the exercise by the State of its supervisory powers.

The Convention organs have earlier found that similar hierarchical complaints are not effective remedies in respect of alleged delays in proceedings which should be tried prior to the introduction of an application under the Convention (see Gibas v. Poland, application no. 24559/94, Commission decision of 6 September 1995, Decisions and Reports 82, pp. 76 and 82, and KuchaÅ™ and Å tis v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 37527/97, 23 May 2000, unreported). In view of the information at its disposal, the Court finds no reason for reaching a different conclusion in the present case. Accordingly, the application cannot be rejected for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies.

As to the merits, the Government maintain that the case was complex and that the applicants contributed to the length of the proceedings in that their original claim was incomplete. In the Government’s view, there were no undue delays in the proceedings which could be imputed to the domestic authorities.

The applicants submit that they did not contribute to the length of the proceedings and that their right to a hearing within a reasonable time was not respected.

The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established by its case-law on the question of “reasonable time”, and having regard to all the material in its possession, that an examination of the merits of the complaint is required.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the remainder of the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President