FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 48818/99 by Helena MICHALÍKOVÁ against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 December 2001 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Vice-President, Mrs E. Palm , Mr J. Makarczyk , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr M. Fischbach , Mr J. Casadevall , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced on 25 January 1999 and registered on 15 June 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Helena Michalíková , is a Slovakian national, born in 1951 and living in Banská Bystrica , Slovakia.

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

The applicant is a teacher. In the 1980s she was disciplined and admonished several times by her employer in connection with alleged breach of work discipline. References to the disciplinary measures, admonitions and the applicant’s political views were made in the applicant’s personal file. One of the disciplinary measures was published within the employer’s organisation.

In 1988 the applicant refused to undergo a psychological examination required for all teachers.

In 1988 the applicant twice demanded that a court declare void a disciplinary measure applied against her by her employer. Both sets of proceedings were terminated in 1988.

In 1988 the applicant’s contract of employment was terminated by a notice given by the employer. The applicant challenged the notice. In the same year, upon the employer’s withdrawal of the notice, the court discontinued the proceedings.

In 1989 the applicant was transferred to a different place of work. She challenged the transfer in court. The final decision in the proceedings was delivered in 1990.

On 13 January 1992 the applicant reached an agreement with her employer on termination of her employment contract. Since then the applicant has been unable to find a permanent job as a teacher.

In 1992 and 1993 the applicant claimed rehabilitation in respect of her political persecution in the past. The Banská Bystrica District Court ( Okresný súd ) instructed the applicant three times in writing to specify her claim and to bring the action in accordance with the procedural rules. As the applicant failed to do so, the court discontinued the proceedings. Its decision was upheld by a court of second instance in 1996.

In 1994 the applicant claimed in court a payment of a sum of money owed to her by a third person. The case went twice through courts at two levels of jurisdiction and the action was dismissed by a decision which became final in 1995.

First set of proceedings concerning the applicant’s  personality rights

On 31 January 1990 several employees of a technical college declared in writing their disapproval of assigning the applicant as a teacher in their school. The declaration referred to the professional skills and health of the applicant.

In 1990 the applicant sued one of the signatories of the declaration before the Banská Bystrica District Court. The applicant sought protection of her personality rights.

On 1 February 1991 the District Court partially granted the action.

On 27 June 1991 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) quashed the judgment and returned the case to the first instance court.

On 14 January 1993 the District Court dismissed the action and on 31 August 1993 the Regional Court upheld this judgment.

In 1996 the applicant requested the proceedings to be re-opened. On 29 June 1998 the proceedings were discontinued as the applicant had failed to comply with the procedural requirements.

Second set of proceedings concerning the applicant’s personality rights

In 1991 the applicant initiated judicial proceedings before the Banská Bystrica District Court seeking protection of her personality rights.

On 11 May and 13 November 1993 the applicant challenged the judges of the District Court and demanded that another court determine her action.

On 25 March 1994 the Bansk á Bystrica Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request for exclusion of the District Court judges.

On 18 July 1994 the action was dismissed. The applicant appealed on 10 August 1994.

On 24 June 1997 the Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court for a decision on the applicant’s petition for exemption from the obligation to pay court fees. On 18 August 1997 the District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees.

On 4 April and 25 May 2001 the applicant complained to the president of the District Court about delays in the proceedings. On 1 June 2001 the president of the District Court admitted that there had been undue delays in the proceedings.

The proceedings are still pending.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair and the decisions were arbitrary.

2. The applicant also complains about the length of the proceedings concerning her action for protection of her personality rights brought in 1991.

3. Under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention the applicant complains that the above treatment to which she was subjected by her former employer including the publication of disciplinary measures taken against her and dissemination of information contained in her personal file prevented her from finding a permanent assignment as a teacher as a result of which she has been unable to take due care of her parents.

4. The applicant further complains under Article 10 of the Convention that negative references concerning her political views were entered in her personal file prior to 1989 and caused her harm at work.

5. Finally, the applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that she has no effective remedy at her disposal in respect of the above Convention complaints.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that her right to a fair trial was violated in the above judicial proceedings.

a) As regards the proceedings which ended in 1988 and 1990, the Court notes that the facts complained of relate to a period prior to 18 March 1992, which is the date when the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, to which Slovakia is one of the successor states, ratified the Convention and recognised the right of individual petition. However, the Convention only governs facts subsequent to its entry into force with respect to each Contracting Party.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3.

b) To the extent that the applicant complains about proceedings in which final decisions were delivered in 1993 and 1995 respectively, the Court notes that the application was introduced on 25 January 1999, i.e. after the expiry of the six months’ period set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

c) As to the applicant’s complaints about unfairness of the first set of proceedings concerning the protection of her personality rights brought in 1990, the Court finds that the final decision for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 was delivered by the Bansk á Bystrica Regional Court on 31 August 1993 which is more than six months before the introduction of the application on 25 January 1999. The applicant’s subsequent attempt to have the proceedings reopened cannot affect the position.

To the extent that the applicant may be understood to complain about the refusal to reopen these proceedings, the Court recalls that there is no right under the Convention to have proceedings reopened and that Article 6 of the Convention does not apply to proceedings determining whether or not a case should be reopened. This complaint is therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.

d) The Court further notes that the second set of proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for protection of her personality rights brought in 1991 are still pending. Accordingly, the complaint about unfairness of these proceedings is premature and therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

2. To the extent that the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the second set of proceedings concerning her personality rights which were brought in 1991, 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.

3. Under Articles 8 of the Convention the applicant complains that the treatment to which she was subjected by her former employer has prevented her from finding a permanent assignment as a teacher as a result of which she has been unable to take duly care of her parents. She also complains that this has resulted in her discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.

The Court recalls that it lacks temporal jurisdiction to examine complaints relating to facts which occurred prior to 18 March 1992 when the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic ratified the Convention and recognised the right of individual application.

The Court has examined the applicant’s complaint that the consequences of her persecution by the former employer have affected her private and family life and resulted in her discriminatory treatment but finds, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention.

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

4. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that negative remarks about her political views were entered in her personal file prior to 1989 and caused her harm in her job.

The Court notes that this part of the application relates to a period prior to 18 March 1992 which, as indicated above, is the date when the Convention entered into force with respect to the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

5. Finally, the applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that she has no effective remedy in respect of the alleged violations of her Convention rights.

a) To the extent that the applicant complains that she has no effective remedy at her disposal as regards the length of the proceedings concerning her claim for protection of personality rights filed in 1991, 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) As to the alleged lack of remedies in respect of the remaining complaints, the Court recalls that Article 13 only requires a remedy in domestic law in respect of grievances which can be regarded as “arguable” in the terms of Convention (see, for example, the Powel and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, § 33).

Since the Court has rejected the other complaints as being inadmissible, they cannot be regarded as being “arguable” for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention.

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.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints about the length of proceedings concerning her personality rights brought in 1991 and about the absence of an effective remedy in this respect;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President