SECOND SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 38794/97 by J. K. against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 September 2001 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr G. Bonello , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska , Mr A. Kovler , judges , and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 1 March 1996 and registered on 27 November 1997,

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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Slovak national, born in 1930 and living in Bratislava. The respondent Government are 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.

In July 1991 the applicant and his wife lodged an action with the Bratislava II District Court (then Obvodný súd , at present Okresný súd ). The action was registered under file No. 9Nc 75/91. It comprised various claims against several defendants. As the submissions were unclear, the applicant was invited to submit further information. He did so on 6 September 1991 as well as on 12 and 31 December 1991.

On 19 February 1992 a District Court judge informed the applicant about the formal requirements for filing an action.

On 28 February 1992, 27 March 1992, 6 April 1992, 20 July 1992, 30 July 1992, 24 August 1992, 30 September 1992 and on 6 September 1993 the applicant made further submissions which the court considered to be incomprehensible.

On 25 January 1993 the applicant filed another action claiming restitution of real property.

On 16 June 1993 the applicant’s above submissions were split and several sets of proceedings were brought in their respect. In addition, a separate set of proceedings was later brought before the Bratislava City Court (then Mestský súd , at present Krajský súd ).

The following is an overview of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s cases.

1. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for restitution of real property located in Bratislava - Prievoz (Bratislava II District Court’s file No. 16C 216/94)

On 16 September 1992 the applicant and his wife filed a new action with the Bratislava II District Court. They referred to their original submissions registered under file No. 9Nc 75/91 and complained about interference with their property rights. Subsequently the applicant informed the court that he claimed restitution of a plot of land in Bratislava - Prievoz . The action was registered under file No. 16C 216/94.

On 16 July 1993, 23 August 1993, 1 June 1994, 13 June 1994 and on 31 January 1995 the applicant submitted further information to the court.

On 19 May 1994 the court heard the applicant.

On 13 June 1994 the Bratislava II District Court sent the case to the Bratislava I District Court for reasons of jurisdiction. On 15 July 1994 the latter court requested the Bratislava City Court to determine to which court the case fell to be examined. On 31 August 1994 the City Court decided that the case was within the jurisdiction of the Bratislava II District Court. On 1 December 1994 the case file was transferred to the Bratislava II District Court.

On 3 January 1995 a judge advised the applicant of formal shortcomings in his action.

On 24 and 30 January 1995 the applicant submitted further information through the intermediary of his lawyer.

On 14 February 1995 the court sent a copy of the action to the defendants. They submitted their arguments in reply between 3 March and 18 April 1995.

A hearing scheduled for 6 October 1995 had to be adjourned because of the absence of the parties. On 15 December 1995 the case was again adjourned as the defendants were absent.

On 25 January 1996 the applicant requested the District Court to issue an interim measure.

The parties failed to appear at a hearing scheduled for 2 February 1996.

On 20 February 1996 the applicant made further submissions to the court.

On 29 February 1996 the applicant requested the Bratislava II District Court to accelerate the proceedings.

A hearing was held on 19 April 1996. The applicant submitted further arguments and the court instructed him about the formal requirements for filing an action.

On 6 May 1996 the applicant’s wife informed the court that she did not wish to pursue the case. On 27 May 1996 the court discontinued the proceedings in her respect.

On 6 May 1996 the applicant modified his action.

On 27 May 1996 the court discontinued the proceedings with respect to two defendants. It also admitted a new defendant in the proceedings.

On 29 May 1996 the applicant submitted further documents.

A hearing was held on 27 June 1996.

On 25 July 1996 the case was adjourned as the defendants failed to appear.

On 2 and 23 September 1996 the applicant submitted further documents to the court.

On 23 September 1996 the court heard the parties and on 27 September 1996 it delivered a judgment declaring the applicant to be the owner of the land in question. The judgment with reasons was typed on 2 December

1996.On 17 December 1996 one of the defendants appealed.

On 14 February 1997 the applicant requested that the judgment be modified and challenged the District Court judge who had delivered it. He alleged that he had claimed restitution of the land and that the court had failed to decide on this claim.

On 22 April 1997 the applicant made further submissions to the court.

On 9 May 1997 the file was transferred to the Bratislava Regional Court for a decision on the appeal. On 2 June 1997 the Regional Court returned the file to the District Court on the ground that it had omitted to decide on the costs of the proceedings.

On 5 August 1997 the District Court delivered a supplementary judgment. The applicant appealed against it on 2 September 1997.

On 10 and 16 February 1998 the applicant complained to the Bratislava II District Court that the proceedings were unreasonably lengthy.

On 27 February 1998 the president of the Bratislava Regional Court admitted that there had been delays in the proceedings which were mainly due to the shortage of judges and to the heavy workload of the Bratislava II District Court.

On 27 March 1998 the applicant complained to the Bratislava II District Court that his action had been misinterpreted and requested the court to decide on his claim for restitution of property.

On 11 April 1998 the applicant complained to the president of the Bratislava II District Court, to the Constitutional Court and to the Ministry of Justice about the length of the proceedings.

On 8 June 1998 the case file was transferred to the Bratislava Regional Court for a decision on the appeal.

On 14 October 1998 the Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment. The file was returned to the District Court on 21 January 1999. The Regional Court’s decision of 14 October 1998 was served on the applicant on 19 November 1999.

On 10 and 31 March 1999, 25 May 1999, 23 November 1999 and on 17 January 2000 the applicant submitted further documents to the District Court.

At a hearing held on 29 November 1999 the applicant stated that he claimed compensation for unjustified use of his land and asked for a lawyer to be appointed to represent him in the proceedings.

The District Court adjourned the case on 24 February and on 29 May 2000.

On 1 July 2000 one of the defendants submitted evidence to the court.

2. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claims for restitution of land in Podunajské Biskupice and Prievoz - Mal é pálenisko (Bratislava II District Court’s file No. 15C 343/97)

On 7 November 1997 the applicant claimed restitution of several plots of land before the Bratislava II District Court.

On 2 January 1998 the court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that there was another set of proceedings pending before it concerning the same subject-matter.

On 19 January 1998 the applicant appealed. On 24 February 1998 the applicant was instructed by the District Court to complete his appeal. He did so on 11 March 1998.

On 30 March 1998 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the first instance decision.

3. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s further claims for restitution of real property (Bratislava City Court file No. 18S 80/94)

On 1 June 1994 the Bratislava Land Office ( Po zemkový úrad ) dismissed the applicant’s claim for restitution of real property.

On 2 November 1994 the Bratislava City Court quashed the administrative decision.

On 7 February 1995 the Land Office discontinued the proceedings on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case.

4. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for restitution of land situated in Podunajsk é Biskupice and for damages (Bratislava II District Court’s file No. 15C 5/94)

The action was filed in July 1991 and it was originally registered under file No. 9Nc 75/91. On 17 January 1994 the action was registered as a separate case under file No. 15C 5/94.

On 17 January 1994 the Bratislava II District Court invited the applicant to pay the court fees. At the same time, the court sent a copy of the action to the defendants for observations.

On 24 January 1994 the applicant applied for an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fees. On 31 January 1994 the court requested the applicant to submit information about his situation. The applicant replied on 7 February 1994.

On 10 February 1994 the Bratislava Land Office submitted documentary evidence to the court. It was sent to the parties on 21 February 1994.

On 8 March 1994 the applicant made new submissions.

On 30 May 1994 the court heard the applicant. The latter specified that he claimed restitution of a plot of land located in Bratislava - Podunajské Biskupice and damages from a co-operative.

On 9 June 1994 the applicant made new submissions.

On 6 July 1994 the case was adjourned due to the absence of the applicant and of two defendants.

On 8 July 1994 as well as on 24 and 30 January 1995 the applicant submitted further information.

A hearing scheduled for 6 March 1995 was adjourned due to the absence of one of the defendants.

The court heard the parties on 22 March 1995.

On 11 April 1995 the applicant submitted documentary evidence.

On 3 and 24 May 1995 two hearings were held.

On 25 May 1995 the court requested an administrative authority to submit information. The administrative authority replied on 15 June 1995.

On 21 June 1995 the court adjourned the case and invited the applicant to pay the court fees.

In June 1995 the applicant applied for the waiver of court fees. The request was dismissed on 9 August 1995. The applicant appealed on 30 August 1995. On 15 November 1995 the case file was transferred to the Bratislava City Court which quashed the District Court’s decision on 27 November 1995. The case file was returned to the District Court on 12 December 1995.

On 30 January 1996 the District Court requested the applicant to substantiate his claims. The applicant replied on 22 February 1996.

On 29 February 1996 the applicant requested the Bratislava II District Court to accelerate the proceedings.

In April 1996 the case was assigned to another judge.

On 21 January 1997 the Bratislava II District Court invited the applicant to eliminate formal shortcomings in his action and to submit further information.

On 24 January 1997 the vice-president of the Bratislava II District Court admitted that there had been delays in the proceedings imputable to the court.

On 7 February 1997 the applicant made further submissions.

On 8 February 1997 the defendant submitted documents requested by the court.

On 30 May 1997 the applicant modified his claim.

On 18 September 1997 the court requested the applicant to specify the object of his action. The applicant replied on 24 October 1997.

On 13 October 1997 the judge requested the applicant to introduce his action in accordance with the requirements laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. On 24 October 1997 the applicant submitted further documents in reply.

On 12 November 1997 an administrative authority informed the court, in reply to its request for further information, that it was no longer competent in the matter. On 6 April 1998 the court therefore asked the Bratislava Regional Office ( Krajský úrad ) to submit the information. The court also requested further information from the applicant. The applicant replied on 23 April 1997. The Bratislava Regional Office replied on 28 April 1998.

On 27 February 1998 the president of the Bratislava Regional Court informed the applicant that the length of the proceedings was mainly due to the heavy workload of the Bratislava II District Court.

On 17 March 1998 the applicant again complained to the Bratislava II District Court about the length of the proceedings.

On 11 April 1998 the applicant complained to the president of the Bratislava II District Court, to the Constitutional Court and to the Ministry of Justice about the length of the proceedings.

The Bratislava II District Court held a hearing on 21 October 1998.

On 23 October and on 6 November 1998 the applicant made further submissions to the District Court.

On 9 November 1998 the court requested the applicant and the defendants to file further observations.

On 4 April 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for exemption from the obligation to pay the court fees. The applicant appealed on 30 March 1999. On 7 April 1999 the case file was transferred to the Regional Court for decision on the appeal. The Regional Court upheld the decision of the District Court on 29 April 1999 and returned the case file to the latter on 30 June 1999.

On 7 July 1999 the applicant was invited to pay the court fees.

On 6 October 1999 the case was adjourned due to the absence of the parties. On 10 November 1999 the case was again adjourned. On 15 November 1999 the court fined the legal representatives of two defendants for obstructing the proceedings.

On 23 November 1999 the applicant completed his action.

On 26 January 2000 the Bratislava II District Court delivered a judgement. The judgement with reasons was made available on 28 March 2000.

On 11 April 2000 the applicant and one of the defendants appealed. On 14 and 17 April 2000 the appeals were completed.

On 20 August 2000 the case file was transferred to the Bratislava Regional Court for a decision on the appeals.

5. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for compensation for the use of his land located in Podunajsk é Biskupice ( Bratislava II District Court’s file No. 19C 173/95)

The action was originally lodged with the Bratislava II District Court in July 1991 and it was registered under file No. 9Nc 75/91. In 1995 it was separated from the original file and registered under file No. 19C 173/95.

On 22 August 1995 the court sent a copy of the action to the defendants and invited them to submit their observations. One of the defendants replied on 11 September 1995.

On 6 February 1996 the court adjourned the case due to the absence of the parties.

On 24 September 1996 the court heard the applicant. The case was adjourned until 13 December 1996.

On 30 September 1996 the applicant completed his action.

On 13 December 1996 the case was adjourned due to the absence of two defendants.

On 2 January 1997 the applicant addressed new submission and documents to the court.

A hearing scheduled for 21 March 1997 was adjourned due to the absence of the defendants.

On 24 June 1997 a hearing was held. The court established that the proceedings concerned the same subject-matter as another set of proceedings pending before it.

On 10 November 1997 the Bratislava II District Court discontinued the proceedings. The decision became final on 19 December 1997.

6. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claims for ownership of a plot of land in Bratislava - Mal é Pálenisko and for damages (Bratislava II District Court’s file No. 9Nc 6/93)

On 22 September 1992 the applicant completed his original action of 5 September 1991 and claimed, inter alia , determination of ownership of a plot of land in Bratislava - Malé Pálenisko and damages. The modified action was registered separately under file No. 9Nc 6/93.

On 23 June 1993 the court sent a copy of the action to the defendants for observations. The defendants replied on 19, 26 and 29 July 1993 respectively.

The court heard the applicant on 20 August 1993 with a view to clarifying the contents of his submissions.

On 31 August 1993 the applicant submitted further information and documentary evidence.

On 18 October 1993 the applicant requested the court to proceed with his case without delay.

On 20 May 1994 the applicant specified the court’s ruling which he was seeking to obtain.

On 20 May 1994 the Bratislava II District Court heard the parties.

On 27 May 1994 the applicant extended the action against another defendant. The court accepted the extension on 12 December 1994.

Hearings were held on 6 October 1994 and on 17 November 1994.

On 27 July 1995 the applicant addressed the court with new submissions.

On 20 December 1995 the Bratislava II District Court adjourned the case as the parties failed to appear.

On 24 January 1997 the vice-president of the Bratislava II District Court admitted that there had been delays in the proceedings imputable to the court.

On 18 March 1997 the applicant complained to the Bratislava II District Court about the length of the proceedings.

On 23 April 1997 a judge advised the applicant of how he should raise his claims in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure.

On 6 May 1997 the applicant filed further submissions.

On 8 October 1997 the vice-president of the Bratislava II District Court informed the applicant, in reply to his complaint, that the judge had not proceeded with the case since May 1997.

On 30 October 1997 the court invited the applicant to pay the court fees. On 17 November 1997 the applicant applied for exemption from the obligation to pay the fees.

On 10 and 16 February 1998 the applicant complained that the proceedings were unreasonably lengthy.

On 27 February 1998 the president of the Bratislava Regional Court noted that the applicant had requested the waiver of court fees and that no decision had been taken on his request. The president’s letter stated that there had been delays in the proceedings which were mainly due to heavy workload of the Bratislava II District Court and to shortage of judges.

On 17 and 27 March 1998 the applicant complained to the Bratislava II District Court that the proceedings lasted more than seven years.

On 11 April 1998 the applicant complained to the president of the Bratislava II District Court, to the Constitutional Court and to the Ministry of Justice about the length of the proceedings.

On 14 April 1998 the District Court requested the applicant to submit information on his situation. The applicant replied on 24 April 1998.

On 21 May 1998 the applicant complained to the president of the Bratislava II District Court that the proceedings were unreasonably lengthy.

On 22 September 1998 the applicant extended his action.

On 10 May 1999 the court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay the court fees.

The proceedings are pending.

7. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for restitution of jewels taken away from his family (Bratislava II District Court’s file No. 10C 384/96)

The action was lodged with the Bratislava II District Court on 22 September 1992 and included in the file No. 9Nc 75/91. Upon the instruction of the president of the Bratislava II District Court of 16 June 1993, the action was separated from the original file and treated in a separate set of proceedings.

On 21 October and 7 December 1993 two hearings were held. At the latter date, the court informed the applicant that the defendant lacked standing in the case.

On 15 December 1993 the applicant explained to the court that he claimed restitution of or compensation for jewels which had been taken away from his family. On 20 December 1993 he requested a change in the defendants. On 29 December 1993 the applicant submitted to the court documentary evidence.

A hearing scheduled for 24 January 1994 was adjourned.

On 28 February 1994 the Bratislava II District Court decided to transmit the case to the Bratislava I District Court for reasons jurisdiction. The case file arrived at the Bratislava I District Court on 30 June 1994.

On 19 June 1996 Bratislava I District Court requested the Bratislava City Court to determine which court had jurisdiction in the case.

On 28 June 1996 the Bratislava City Court found that the case should be dealt with by the Bratislava II District Court. The case file was returned to the Bratislava II District Court on 7 November 1996.

Hearings were held on 3 February, 5 March, 28 April and on 11 June 1997.

The applicant did not appear before the court on 17 June 1998.

On 7 November 1998 the applicant complained to the Bratislava City Court, to the Constitutional Court and to the Ministry of Justice that there had been no progress in the case.

On 2 June 1999 the applicant extended the action against further defendants. The court admitted such an extension on 9 August 1999.

On 8 August 2000 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 24 October 2000.

8. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for damages (Bratislava II District Court’s file No. 11C 124/93)

The action was lodged on 22 September 1992 and included in the file No. 9Nc 75/91. Upon instruction of the Bratislava II District Court the applicant modified his claim on 14 January 1993. He claimed compensation on the ground that he had not been allowed to sell fruits from his orchard at market places in the period from 1986 to 1990.

On 29 July 1993 the court invited the applicant to pay the court fee. On 4 August 1993 the applicant refused to pay the fee.

On 24 August 1993 the applicant was heard. He amended the action.

On 24 January 1994 a hearing was held.

On 31 January 1994 the applicant submitted further observations to the court.

Hearings were held on 16 January, 6 February, 20 March, 15 April, 7 June, 18 September, 4 October, 16 October, 8 November and on 20 December 1995.

On 3 February 1996 the court invited the applicant to an informative questioning. The applicant did not appear.

On 22 January 1997 the District Court requested the competent authorities to establish the applicant’s whereabouts. It also sent a letter to the applicant requesting him to submit further documentary evidence.

On 24 January 1997 the vice-president of the Bratislava II District Court admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, that there had been delays in the proceedings.

On 26 May 1997 the applicant extended his action.

On 8 October 1997 the vice-president of the Bratislava II District Court informed the applicant, in reply to his complaint, that the case had not been proceeded with since June 1997.

A hearing was held on 3 November 1997.

On 7 and 17 November 1997 as well as on 18 December 1997 the applicant made further submissions to the court.

On 27 February 1998 the President of the Bratislava Regional Court informed the applicant that the delays in the proceedings were mainly due to the heavy workload of the Bratislava II District Court and to shortage of judges.

Another hearing before the District Court was held on 4 March 1998.

On 23 April 1998 the court stayed the proceedings.

On 27 April and 29 May 1998 the applicant submitted further information.

On 13 July 1998 the applicant requested the District Court to resume the proceedings.

The applicant did not comply with the District Court’s invitation to appear for an informative questioning on 11 August 1999.

Hearings were held on 8 March 2000 and on 26 June 2000. At the latter date the District Court accepted an extension of the action.

On 10 July 2000 the applicant submitted further information to the court.

On 17 July 2000 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 9 October 2000.

9. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for compensation for lost earnings (Bratislava II District Court’s file No. 14C 48/93)

The claim was originally included in the applicant’s action registered by the Bratislava II District Court under file no. 9Nc 75/91. Upon the decision of the president of the Bratislava II District Court of 16 June 1993 it was registered as a separate case under file No. 14C 48/93.

On 1 July 1993 the District Court judge heard the applicant and instructed him that he should file his action in accordance with the formal requirements laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure.

On 26 July 1993 the applicant completed his action in that he indicated against whom it was directed.

On 18 August 1993 the court requested the applicant to specify the object of his action as it considered it unclear.

On 9 September 1993 the court requested the applicant to provide more information about the defendants. On 23 September 1993 the applicant requested the court to determine who were the defendants in the case. On 28 September 1993 the court again requested the applicant to clearly indicate the object of his action and informed him how it should be correctly presented.

On 9 October 1993 the applicant explained that he claimed compensation for lost income on the ground that between 1953 and 1971 his employer had not offered him a job corresponding to his qualification.

On 9 November 1993 the judge again advised the applicant of how he should file his action. The applicant subsequently made further submissions in which he indicated a new defendant and specified that he claimed compensation under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act.

A hearing was held on 23 May 1994.

On 13 October 1994 the case was adjourned as the parties did not appear.

On 17 August 1994 and on 31 October 1994 the applicant submitted further information to the District Court.

On 6 April 1995 the District Court dismissed the action on the ground that it had no legal basis in Slovak law and that it was directed against legal persons which had no standing in the case. The District Court recalled, in particular, that the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act provided only for moral rehabilitation for wrongs in the sphere of labour relations and that it excluded any compensation for lost income or damage as claimed by the applicant.

On 2 June 1995 the applicant appealed. On 7 and 13 June 1995 the District Court requested the applicant to complete the appeal. The applicant complied on 30 June and 8 August 1995.

On 22 April 1996 the Bratislava II District Court transferred the case file to the Bratislava City Court. The latter heard the parties on 7 and 21 June 1996. On 19 July 1996 the Bratislava City Court upheld the first instance judgment.

10. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for compensation for compulsory military service (Bratislava III District Court’s file No. 9C 37/94)

The claim was lodged with the Bratislava II District Court in July 1991. On 16 June 1993, upon the decision of the president of the Bratislava II District Court, it was registered as a separate case.

On 12 July 1993 the court sent a copy of the action to the defendant. The latter submitted observations in reply on 6 August 1993.

On 19 November 1993 the applicant made further submissions to the court. On 26 November 1993 the court requested the applicant to clearly indicate the object of his claim.

On 30 November 1993 the applicant explained to the District Court that  he claimed an adjustment of his old-age pension and damages on the ground that he had been obliged to serve in a military working camp in the 1950s.

On 15 December 1993 the Bratislava II District Court transferred the case to the Bratislava III District Court for reasons of jurisdiction.

On 20 October 1994 the Bratislava III District Court challenged this decision before the Bratislava City Court. On 26 October 1994 the City Court concluded that the case was within jurisdiction of the Bratislava III District Court.

On 7 October 1995 the applicant submitted further documents to the Bratislava III District Court at the latter’s request. On 6 December 1996 the court forwarded copies of the documents to the defendant. The latter submitted observations in reply on 16 April 1997.

On 24 July 1996, 4 February 1997 and on 20 March 1997 the applicant complained to the president of the Bratislava III District Court about the length of the proceedings.

On 17 March 1997 the president of the Bratislava III District Court informed the applicant that there had been several changes in the judges dealing with the case and that the court lacked judges.

On 16 April 1997 the defendant submitted further observations on the case. On 8 July 1997 the District Court invited the applicant to submit his observations in reply.

On 22 October 1997 the judge heard the applicant.

On 10 December 1997 the District Court dismissed the action. As to the claim for an increase in the applicant’s old-age pension, the court found, with reference to the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s military service, that the applicant had not exercised forced labour in a military camp within the meaning of Section 18 (1) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act and concluded that he was not, therefore, entitled to have his pension increased under that Act. The court further held that, in any event, the defendants lacked standing in the proceedings.

As to the applicant’s claim for damages, the District Court found that it had no basis in Slovak law and that, in any event, it had become statute-barred.

The applicant appealed on 23 February 1998.

On 10 March 1998 the District Court requested the applicant to complete the appeal. The court’s request was reiterated on 25 May 1998. The applicant complied on 9 June 1998.

On 15 October 1998 the case file was transmitted to the Bratislava Regional Court. On 9 December 1998 the Regional Court upheld the first instance judgement.

11. Proceedings concerning the pension of the applicant’s late father (Bratislava I District Court’s file No. 18C 130/94)

The claim was originally lodged with the Bratislava II District Court in July 1991 and it was registered, together with the other claims filed by the applicant, under file No. 9Nc 75/91. Subsequently it was registered as a separate case. On 23 September 1993 the applicant specified that he claimed 124,800 Slovak korunas (SKK) on the ground that his late father’s pension which had been paid to him and his mother between 1949 and 1971 had not been determined correctly.

On 29 June 1993 the Bratislava II District Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case and transferred it to the Bratislava I District Court.

On 11 January 1994 the Bratislava I District Court invited the applicant to pay the court fees. On 20 January 1994 the applicant requested to be exempted from the obligation to pay the fees.

On 8 March 1994 the Bratislava I District Court held that the case fell outside its jurisdiction and requested the Bratislava City Court to determine the issue. On 8 June 1994 the City Court concluded that the case was within the jurisdiction of the Bratislava I District Court.

Hearings scheduled for 2 and 28 February 1995 had to be adjourned due to the absence of the applicant. On 4 April 1995 the District Court dismissed the action on the ground that the applicant had failed to substantiate his claim.

On 9 May 1995 the applicant appealed. On 19 June 1995 the file was transferred to the Bratislava City Court. On 6 July 1995 the appellate court adjourned the case as further documentary evidence was required. On 11 July 1995 the applicant submitted the documents to the Regional Court.

On 23 May 1996 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment. It found, with reference to the relevant provisions of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act, that the defendants lacked locus standi in the case.

12. The applicant’s submissions to the Constitutional Court

On several occasions the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court ( Ústavný súd ) about, inter alia , delays in the proceedings concerning his cases and that his property rights were violated.

On 16 December 1997, after an exchange of correspondence, a judge informed the applicant that the Constitutional Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with proceedings before the general courts. The letter further stated that a possible Constitutional Court’s finding of undue delays in the proceedings before the general courts would only have a declaratory character without any legal implications for the latter.

On 24 March 1998 the applicant lodged a constitutional petition. He alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that his claims of 1991 had not been decided upon.

On 5 May 1998 a constitutional judge expressed the view that there had been undue delays in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s cases. The letter stated that the Constitutional Court lacked jurisdiction to issue orders to the general courts with a view to accelerating the proceedings pending before them. The applicant was advised to bring his petition in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Constitutional Court Act if he wished the Constitutional Court to take a formal decision on it.

On 30 May 1998 the applicant filed another petition to the Constitutional Court. It was rejected as it had not been filed in accordance with the formal requirements.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Section 18 (1) of Act No. 58/1969 on the liability of the State for damage caused by a State organ’s decision or by its erroneous official action ( Z ákon o zodpovednosti za škodu spôsobenú rozhodnutím orgánu štátu alebo jeho nesprávnym úradným postupom - “the State Liability Act”) renders the State liable for damage caused in the context of carrying out functions vested in public authorities which results from erroneous official actions of persons entrusted with the exercise of these functions. A claim for compensation under this provision can only be granted when the plaintiff shows that he or she suffered damage as a result of an erroneous action of a public authority,  quantifies its amount, and shows that there is a causal link between the damage and the erroneous action in question.

When examining a petition about delays in domestic proceedings filed by a different person whose case is now pending before the European Court of Human Rights (application No. 51545/99), the Constitutional Court found a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time. As the Constitutional Court lacked jurisdiction to provide redress to the petitioner, he sought compensation from the Ministry of Justice under Section 18 of the State Liability Act. The Ministry of Justice dismissed the claim and the person concerned therefore filed an action to the Bratislava I District Court.

On 26 May 1999 the Bratislava I District Court dismissed the action (file No. 23 C 7/99-38) on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to show that he had suffered damage and that there was a causal link between any damage and undue delays in the proceedings concerning his case.

The plaintiff appealed and maintained, inter alia , that he had suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the court’s failure to proceed with his case during six years. He explained that the court’s inactivity had caused him a trauma, that he had aged and could not rely on judicial protection as a result of which he had become a second-class citizen.

By a decision delivered on 16 November 1999 (file No. 15 Co 383/99-81) the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment. It found that the plaintiff’s claim did not fall under the State Liability Act.

Regulation No. 32/1965, as amended, governs compensation for damage caused to a person’s health. Section 2 provides for compensation for pain. Under paragraph 2 of Section 2, compensation for pain is not payable in cases of simple psychic reactions affecting a person’s health which are of passing character or for short-term changes in a person’s health which do not require a medical treatment or which cannot be established in an objective manner.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings concerning his cases. He further alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that his claims were not granted.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings concerning his cases. He alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, 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 object that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as he did not claim compensation for the delays in the proceedings pursuant to the relevant provisions of the State Liability Act of 1969. They contend that such an action would represent an effective remedy within the meaning of the Court’s case-law and that the applicant should have tried it before filing an application to the Court.

The Court has noted that Section 18 (1) of the State Liability Act renders the State liable for damage caused by erroneous official actions of persons entrusted with functions vested in public authorities. However, in a different case the Bratislava 1 District Court and the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed an action against the Ministry of Justice concerning a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by undue delays in judicial proceedings as they did not find it established that the plaintiff had suffered damage on account of the excessive length of the proceedings concerning his case (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” above).

Since there is no indication that decisions in favour of plaintiffs were delivered by domestic courts in similar cases, the Court is not persuaded that the Bratislava 1 District Court and the Bratislava Regional Court, to which the case would fall to be examined, would assess differently a claim for damages under Section 18 of the State Liability Act lodged by the applicant in the present case.

In these circumstances, the Court cannot accept the Government’s argument that this remedy offers reasonable prospects of success and that it is capable of providing direct protection for the right to a hearing within a reasonable time guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as required by the relevant case-law (see the Deweer v. Belgium judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, pp. 16-17, § 29, and the Akdivar and Others v. Turkey judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1211, § 68). Accordingly, the application cannot be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

As to the merits, the Government admit certain delays in the proceedings registered under the Bratislava II District Court’s file Nos. 15C 5/94, 19C 173/95, 9Nc 6/93, 10C 384/96, 11C 124/93, 14C 48/93 (delays admitted between November 1995 until April 1996) as well as in the proceedings registered under the Bratislava III District Court’s file No. 9C 37/94 (delays admitted between 25 November 1994 and 21 September 1995) and in the proceedings registered under the Bratislava I District Court’s file No. 18C 130/94 (delays admitted between 31 August 1994 and 10 January 1995) - (see points 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in “The Facts” above). The Government further maintain that the applicant has contributed to a great extent to the length of all sets of proceedings. They point out that his submissions are incomprehensible and propose that the Court reject the application as being abusive and manifestly ill-founded.

The applicant contends that his right to a hearing within a reasonable time was not respected.

a) As regards the proceedings concerning the pension of the applicant’s late father (Bratislava I District Court’s file No. 18C 130/94, point 11 in “The Facts” above), the Court can examine their length as from 18 March 1992 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 application (see, e.g., Matter v. Slovakia , no. 31534/96, § 52). The proceedings ended on 23 May 1996 when the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment. Accordingly, the period under consideration is four years and two months. During this period the merits of the case were examined by courts at two levels and several procedural issues had to be determined. Considering the proceedings as a whole, the Court finds that the “reasonable time” requirement has been respected.

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) The Bratislava II District Court discontinued the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for compensation for the use of his land located in Podunajsk é Biskupice ( file No. 19C 173/95, point 5 in “The Facts” above) as well as the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claims for restitution of land in Podunajské Biskupice and Prievoz - Mal é pálenisko ( file No. 15C 343/97, point 2 in “The Facts” above) as they concerned the same subject-matters as different sets of proceedings pending before the same court. In the Court’s view, by delivering these procedural decisions the Bratislava II District Court did not determine the applicant’s “civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1.

The Court further notes that the domestic courts rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation for lost earnings (Bratislava II District Court’s file No. 14C 48/93, point 9 in “The Facts” above) as it had no legal basis in Slovak law. Since those proceedings did not concern a right, which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law, they fall outside the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, e.g., Balmer-Schafroth and Others v. Switzerland, Reports 1997-IV, p. 1357, § 32).

It follows that these complaints are 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.

c) The Court notes that the final decision in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s further claims for restitution of real property (point 3 in “The Facts” above) was delivered by the Bratislava Land Office on 7 February 1995 which is more than six months before the introduction of the application on 1 March 1996.

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

d) As regards the complaints about the length of the remaining sets of proceedings (points 1, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 in “The Facts” above), the Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities as well as what has been at stake for the applicant), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of these complaints is required.

2. The applicant alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that his above claims were not granted.

a) The applicant’s complaints about a violation of his property rights in proceedings which are still pending (points 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 in “The Facts” above) are premature and must be rejected under Article 3 5 §§ 1 et 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

b) The Court notes that the final decision in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s further claims for restitution of real property (point 3 in “The Facts” above) was delivered by the Bratislava Land Office on 7 February 1995 which is more than six months before the introduction of the application on 1 March 1996.

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

c) The Court has also examined the applicant’s complaints about a violation of his property rights in the remaining sets of proceedings (points 2, 5, 9, 10 and 11 in “The Facts” above) but finds, to the extent that they have been substantiated and are within its competence, that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention or its protocols.

It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicant’s complaints about the length of the proceedings described in “The Facts” above under points 1, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10; and

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis              Registrar              President