FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 52525/99 by Jozef KOREC 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 1 June 1999 and registered on 9 November 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Jozef Korec , is a Slovakian national who was born in 1915 and lives in Uhrovec . The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for damages

On 15 December 1993 the applicant claimed 4,345 Slovakian korunas (SKK) from his neighbour on the ground that snow which had fallen from the roof of the latter’s house had damaged his fence. The amount claimed was based on an expert’s opinion of 23 September 1993 elaborated at the applicant’s request. The applicant suggested that the court issue a payment order without hearing the parties.

On 19 September 1994 the Topo ľč any District Court dismissed the action with reference to witness statements according to which the defendant had repaired the applicant’s fence. The applicant appealed.

On 23 September 1995 the Bratislava Regional Court branch office in Nitra quashed the first instance judgment and instructed the District Court to appoint an expert with a view to determining the damage.

An expert appointed by the District Court concluded in his opinion that the damage which the applicant had suffered amounted to SKK 5,900.

On 16 September 1997 the District Court delivered a decision on the expert’s fees. The applicant appealed and contended that the appointment of the expert had been superfluous as the damage had been previously assessed by another expert at the applicant’s expenses. The applicant further alleged that the opinion submitted by the expert appointed by the court was erroneous.

On 23 October 1997 the District Court delivered a judgment in which it ordered the defendant to pay compensation as claimed by the applicant, namely SKK 4,345. The compensation granted to the applicant was lower than the assessment made by the expert appointed by the court, as the District Court was bound by the applicant’s claim.

The applicant appealed and claimed also the reimbursement of the fees of the expert whom he had asked to assess the damage in 1993.

On 7 October 1998 the Nitra Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 23 October 1997. It noted that a plaintiff lacked standing to appeal against a first instance judgement by which his or her claim was allowed in full.

In the same decision delivered on 7 October 1998 the Nitra Regional Court further upheld the District Court’s decision on experts’ fees of 16 September 1997. The Regional Court found that the fees had been determined in accordance with the relevant law and considered irrelevant the applicant’s argument that the appointment of the expert had not been necessary. The Regional Court’s decision stated , inter alia , that the defendant had attempted to pay the sum awarded to the applicant and that the latter had refused to accept it. The decision was served on the applicant on 2 February 1999.

Proceedings concerning the validity of purchase contracts

The applicant unsuccessfully challenged two purchase contracts concluded in 1989 under which he had sold real property to another person. The applicant alleged that the contracts had been manipulated by a lawyer and that they did not correspond to his real intention. The documents submitted indicate that the final decision in the proceedings was delivered by the Supreme Court on 30 November 1993. Subsequently the applicant complained to the Slovakian Bar Association that the lawyer involved had acted unlawfully. He also petitioned the General Prosecutor’s office that criminal proceedings be brought against the judges who had decided on the case. His request was to no avail.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings concerning his claim for damages. He also complains that his right to a fair hearing was violated in that ( i ) the defendant failed to pay the damages awarded to him and (ii) that the sum which he paid for the expert opinion of 23 September 1993 has not been reimbursed to him. He alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

2.  The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Slovakian authorities failed to declare void the purchase contracts concluded in 1989 and that the persons liable for the violation of his rights in this respect have not been sanctioned.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was violated in the proceedings concerning his claim for damages.

a) To the extent that the applicant complains about the length of the proceedings, 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 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

b) The applicant further complains that the defendant failed to pay him the compensation granted by the courts.

The Court notes that it does not appear from the applicant’s submissions that he claimed enforcement of the judicial decisions in question.

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

c) The applicant complains that the courts did not rely on the opinion which an expert had elaborated on his request in 1993 and that they failed to reimburse him the relevant costs.

It does not appear from the documents submitted that the applicant challenged the District Court’s decision to appoint an expert. In any event, the fact that the courts considered it necessary to take further evidence by appointing an expert of their own choice, that they did not rely on the opinion of a different expert which had been elaborated at the applicant’s request before the proceedings had been brought, and that the costs of such an opinion have not been reimbursed to the applicant does not, in the Court’s view, disclose any appearance of a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1.

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 further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Slovakian authorities failed to declare void the above purchase contracts of 1989 and that the persons liable for the violation of his rights in that context have not been sanctioned.

a) The documents submitted indicate that the final decision in the proceedings concerning the validity of the purchase contracts was delivered by the Supreme Court on 30 November 1993 which is more than six months before the introduction of the application on 1 June 1999.

It follows that this complaint is introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

b) The Court further recalls that neither Article 6 § 1 nor any other provision of the Convention guarantee a right to have criminal or disciplinary proceedings brought against third persons.

It follows that the applicant’s remaining 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.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings concerning his claim for damages;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President