SECOND SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 47802/99 by Milan BARLA against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 21 June 2001 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr G. Bonello , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mr M. Fischbach , 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 7 September 1998 and registered on 29 April 1999,

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 9 December 1999,

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, Mr Milan Barla, is a Slovakian national , born in 1928 and living in Bratislava. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Vr šanský .

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

On 27 November 1995 the applicant lodged an action against the husband of his late mother with the Bratislava III District Court (then Obvodný súd , at present Okresný súd ). He claimed that the reasons for which his mother had disinherited him were void.

On 26 January 1996 and on 22 March 1996 the defendant submitted his observations on the applicant’s claim.

On 7 May 1996 and on 5 June 1996 the District Court heard the parties.

On 6 August 1996 the defendant died.

On 10 October and on 22 November 1996 the applicant requested the court to accelerate the proceedings.

On 13 January 1997 the notary public informed the District Court about the names and addresses of the defendant’s successors.

On 10 February 1997 the head of the Bratislava III District Office ( Obvodný úrad ) asked the president of the District Court, at the applicant’s request, to accelerate the proceedings.

On 15 April 1997 the applicant submitted further information to the District Court. On 23 July 1997 and 9 September 1997 the applicant proposed that witnesses be heard.

A hearing before the Bratislava III District Court was held on 28 October 1997. The applicant extended his action claiming that the relevant document by which he had been disinherited was void.

On 22 January 1998 the court heard the parties. The case was adjourned with a view to taking further evidence.

On 1 April 1998 the case was assigned to another judge in the context of a reform as a result of which the Bratislava III District Court took over the cases pending before another court.

On 4 May 1998 the applicant’s lawyer complained about the length of the proceedings to the president of the District Court. As no reply was submitted, the applicant lodged a new complaint on 8 June 1998. On 20 July 1998 the vice-president of the District Court explained to the applicant that the delays in the proceedings were due to the court’s heavy workload.

On 22 and 29 July 1998 further evidence was submitted upon the instruction of the judge of 7 July 1998.

On 18 January 1999 the applicant complained about delays in the proceedings to the Ministry of Justice. In reply, the vice-president of the District Court informed the applicant, on 1 March 1999, that the length of the proceedings was due to the judge’s heavy workload.

A hearing was held on 16 March 1999. The case was adjourned with a view to obtaining further evidence.

On 20 April 1999 the Bratislava III District Court granted the applicant’s action. The defendants appealed on 2 and 16 July 1999. The case file was submitted to the appellate court on 13 August 1999.

On 16 November 1999 the Bratislava Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) upheld the first instance judgment.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that the proceedings concerning his case lasted excessively long. He alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which provides, so far as relevant, as follows:

“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 he did not lodge a constitutional petition pursuant to Article 130 (3) of the Constitution alleging a violation of his right to a hearing without delays.

The applicant disagrees.

The Court has found earlier that a petition pursuant to Article 130 (3) of the Constitution need not be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in cases concerning delays in proceedings (see Nemec and Others v. Slovakia, no. 48672/99, decision of 18 January 2001, with further reference). The Government’s objection must therefore be dismissed.

As to the merits, the Government submit that the reasonable time requirement was respected. They maintain, in particular, that the establishment of the facts required extensive taking of evidence, that the case had to be assigned to another judge due to a reform as a result of which the Bratislava III District Court took over the cases pending before another court which ceased to exist. The fact that the initial defendant died and that his successors had to be established before the District Court could resume the proceeding also contributed to the length of the proceedings.

The applicant submits that the case was not complex and that the length of the proceedings was mainly due to the fact that the courts did not proceed with the case in an effective way.

The Court notes that the proceedings started on 27 November 1995 and ended by the delivery of the Bratislava Regional Court’s judgment on 16 November 1999. The period under consideration accordingly lasted 3 years, 11 months and 19 days.

The reasonableness of the length of these proceedings is to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities, and the importance of what was at stake for the applicant in the litigation (see Süßmann v. Germany, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, pp. 1172-73, § 48; Pammel v. Germany, 1 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, p. 1110, § 60; and Gast and Popp v. Germany, no. 29357/95, § 70, ECHR 2000-II).

In the Court’s view, the case was not particularly complex notwithstanding certain difficulties the District Court encountered when establishing the relevant facts.

As regards the applicant’s conduct, it is undisputed that the applicant did not act in a way which inappropriately prolonged the proceedings.

As to the conduct of the courts, the Court notes, on the one hand, that in the proceedings at first instance there were periods when the court remained inactive for several months. The documents submitted indicate that this was due to the heavy workload of the judge. On the other hand, the Court accepts the Government’s argument that the death of the initial defendant contributed to the length of the proceedings for objective reasons. As to the proceedings at second instance, they were conducted with due diligence.

Making an overall assessment of the length of the proceedings, it did not, in the Court’s view, go beyond what may be considered reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. The applicant’s complaint does not, therefore, disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of 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

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Registrar President