FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 56452/00 by Karol NEZBEDA against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) , sitting on 18 June 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo ,

Mrs E. Palm , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 February 2000 and registered on 11 April 2000,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Karol Nezbeda , is a Slovakian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Závadka nad Hronom.

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

On 27 September 1994 the applicant claimed a sum of money from an insurance company before the Bansk á Bystrica District Court.

On 17 May 1995 the District Court transferred the case to the Bansk á Bystrica Regional Court for reasons of jurisdiction.

On 23 July 1997 the vice-president of the Bansk á Bystrica Regional Court informed the applicant, in reply to the latter’s complaint, that the case could not be proceeded with as the representative of the defendant company had failed to appear at hearings scheduled for 4 June 1996, 26 November 1996 and 6 May 1997.

On 27 February 1998 the Regional Court allowed the applicant to amend his claims.

On 11 November 1998 the Bansk á Bystrica Regional Court allowed the applicant’s action in part and dismissed the remaining claims. The Regional Court further decided that neither party had the right to have the costs reimbursed.

On 8 June 1999 the applicant complained that the judgment with reasons had not yet been served on him. On 20 July 1999 the president of the Regional Court admitted that the complaint was justified and informed the applicant that the judgment would be sent out shortly. It was served on the applicant on 2 August 1999.

Both the applicant and the defendant company appealed. On 7 October 1999 the applicant withdrew his appeal.

On 30 August 2000 the Supreme Court discontinued the appellate proceedings as the defendant had failed to submit reasons for the appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the proceedings concerning his action were unfair in that his claims were not allowed in full and that the Regional Court failed to order the defendant to reimburse the applicant’s costs. The applicant further complains that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that he did not have an effective remedy at his disposal in this respect. He alleges a violation of Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 17 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning his claim were unfair.

The Court notes that the applicant withdrew his appeal against the Regional Court’s judgment of 11 November 1998. He has not, therefore, complied with the requirement as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

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

2. The applicant further alleges a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention in that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that he did not have an effective remedy at his disposal in this respect.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

3. The Court has also examined the applicant’s complaint under Article 17 of the Convention but finds, to the extent that it has been substantiated and falls within its competence, that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the applicant’s rights under 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.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints about the length of the proceedings and about the absence of effective domestic remedies in this respect;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President