SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 46209/99 by Ján ROŠKO against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 May 2001 as a Chamber composed of

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

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 29 October 1998 and registered on 16 February 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 49 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ján Roško , is a Slovak national, born in 1950 and living in Klenovec , Slovakia.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 13 May 1996 the applicant applied to the Social Security Administration ( Sociálna poisťovňa ) for disability benefits.

On 6 August 1996 the Head Office of the Social Security Administration dismissed the request. The applicant challenged this decision.

On 7 November 1996, following a re-examination of the applicant’s health by an expert commission, the Head Office of the Social Security Administration granted disability benefits to the applicant with retroactive effect as from 1 September 1996.

On 12 March 1998 a second instance expert commission found that the applicant was entitled to disability benefits as from 1 January 1992. The applicant therefore sought a judicial review of the decision of the Social Security Administration of 7 November 1996 before the Banská Bystrica Regional Court ( Krajský súd ). He claimed that he was entitled to disability benefits as from 1 January 1992.

On 7 April 1998 the Regional Court quashed the administrative decision of 7 November 1996 and sent the case back to the Social Security Administration for a new decision on the merits of the applicant’s claim. In the reasons for the judgement, the court expressed the view that the applicant was entitled to disability benefits as from 1 January 1992.

On 25 June 1998 the applicant filed a petition for enforcement of the above judgement to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court. The court informed the applicant that the enforcement fell within the jurisdiction of the Bratislava I District Court ( Okresný súd ). On 14 September 1998 the applicant requested the Bratislava I District Court to enforce the Regional Court’s judgment. Upon the instructions of the District Court the applicant supplemented the petition on 11 November 1998 and on 25 October 1999. He explained that he claimed the enforcement of the benefits which were due to him.

On 5 January 1999 the Social Security Administration re-examined the case and decided to grant disability benefits to the applicant for the period starting on 13 May 1993. The benefits for the period from 13 May 1993 until 1 March 1999 were paid to the applicant.

The applicant again sought a judicial review of this decision before the Banská Bystrica Regional Court. He claimed a right to disability benefits as from 1 January 1992.

On 5 May 1999 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court upheld the Social Security Administration’s decision of 5 January 1999. The applicant appealed.

On 24 November 1999 the Supreme Court ( Najvyšší súd ) quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and on 22 December 1999 it returned the case file back to the Regional Court.

On 5 September 2000 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice about delays in the proceedings before the Banská Bystrica Regional Court.

On 2 October 2000 the applicant extended his claims before the Regional Court.

On 1 March 2001 a Banská Bystrica Regional Court judge informed the applicant that a hearing scheduled for 25 October 2000 had to be adjourned until 11 April 2001 for formal reasons. The judge also informed the applicant that, due to lack of judges, delays in the proceedings were likely to occur. The proceedings are still pending.

B. Relevant domestic law

Under Section 250q (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court deciding on a remedy filed against an administrative decision shall deliver a judgment in which it either upholds the challenged decision or quashes it and returns the matter back to the administrative authority for further proceedings.

Section 250r of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that, when a court quashes a decision of an administrative authority, the latter is bound by the legal opinion expressed by the court when re-examining the case.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that ( i ) the Social Security Administration did not comply with the Banská Bystrica Regional Court’s judgment of 7 April 1998, as it did not grant him the disability benefits as from 1 January 1992; (ii) his petition for enforcement of the Regional Court’s judgment of 7 April 1998 was not proceeded with; and (iii) there have been unreasonable delays in the proceedings concerning his request for disability benefits.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was violated as the Social Security Administration refused to grant him disability benefits as from 1 January 1992 despite the fact that in the judgment of 7 April 1998 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court expressed the view that he should be granted the benefits as from that date.

The Court notes that by the judgment of 7 April 1998 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed, in accordance with Section 250q (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decision of the Social Security Administration of 7 November 1996 and returned the matter back to the latter for further proceedings, i.e. for a new determination of the merits of the case including the date as from which the applicant is entitled to the benefits. The Social Security Administration re-examined the case and delivered a new decision on its merits on 5 January 1999. The applicant again challenged this decision and the proceedings concerning this issue are still pending before the Banská Bystrica Regional Court. Accordingly, this complaint is premature.

It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 et 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

2. The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that his request for enforcement of the Banská Bystrica Regional Court’s judgment of 7 April 1998 was not proceeded with.

The Court found above that by the judgment delivered on 7 April 1998 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court did not formally determine the merits of the applicant’s claim, but only quashed the administrative decision in issue and returned the case to the Social Security Administration. The judgment of 7 April 1998 did not, therefore, give the applicant any enforceable right to disability benefits as from a particular date contrary to what the applicant claims. The fact that the court expressed the view, in the reasons for its judgment, that the benefits should be granted as from 1 January 1992 cannot affect the position.

In these circumstances, the Court finds that Article 6 § 1 is not applicable to the proceedings in question.

It follows that this 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.

3. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning his claim for disability benefits have lasted unreasonably long.

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.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Registrar President