SECOND SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 39752/98 by Helena MATOUŠKOVÁ against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5 April 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 10 September 1997 and registered on 9 February 1998,

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 2 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 is a Slovak national, born in 1940 and living in Bratislava.

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

On 9 November 1994 the applicant sued a co-operative before the Bratislava II District Court ( Obvodný súd ). She claimed the payment of a sum to which she was entitled after she had withdrawn from the co-operative.

On 18 January 1995 the Bratislava II District Court adjourned the case as the defendant’s representative did not appear.

On 20 February 1995 the District Court again adjourned the hearing because of the applicant’s failure to appear.

A hearing scheduled for 22 March 1995 had to be adjourned due to the absence of both parties.

On 24 April 1995 the District Court adjourned the case on the ground that the defendant had not been properly served with a copy of the action.

On 29 May 1995 the District Court adjourned the case until 26 June 1995, as the applicant did not appear.

On 26 June 1995 the District Court established that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case and transferred it to the Bratislava City Court ( Mestský súd ).

On 13 October 1995 the Bratislava City Court invited the applicant to pay the court fee of 2,000 Slovak korunas (SKK).

On 7 November 1995 the Bratislava City Court was notified that the applicant had paid the fee.

On 29 November 1995 the Bratislava City Court resolved that the applicant had to pay an additional amount of SKK 8,600 in court fees.

On 12 April 1996 the applicant requested the Bratislava City Court to proceed with the case.

On 12 September 1996 the applicant complained about delays in the proceedings to the president of the City Court.

On 24 September 1996 the latter informed the applicant that the proceedings had been stayed on 18 September 1996 and that the relevant decision would be served later.

In its decision of 18 September 1996, the Bratislava City Court noted that the decision on the applicant’s action depended on the assessment of the property of the co-operative concerned and that this preliminary issue was the subject matter of a different set of proceedings pending before it. The City Court therefore stayed the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim pending the outcome of the other set of proceedings.

The applicant appealed on 25 September 1996. She maintained, with reference to the relevant provision of the Commercial Code as well as to the memorandum and articles of the co-operative, that the amount due to her was to be calculated on the basis of the co-operative’s net business assets set out in its financial statement for the year when her membership in the co-operative had been terminated. The applicant argued that this information was available and that the outcome of the other set of the proceedings had no bearing on the determination of her claim.

On 12 December 1996 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice that her case was not proceeded with.

On 27 January 1997 the Ministry of Justice admitted that the applicant’s complaint about delays in the proceedings was justified.

On 29 January 1997 the Supreme Court ( Najvyšší súd ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the City Court’s decision of 18 September 1996.

On 24 March 1997 the applicant lodged a petition under Article 130 (3) of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court ( Ústavný súd ). She alleged, in substance, a violation of her right to a fair hearing and that the proceedings concerning her case lasted unreasonably long.

On 11 June 1997 the Constitutional Court declared admissible the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings and rejected the remainder of her petition.

On 1 July 1997 the Constitutional Court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had failed to appoint a lawyer to represent her as required by the law.

On 24 March 1999 the applicant complained again to the Ministry of Justice about delays in the proceedings. The complaint was forwarded to the president of the Bratislava Regional Court ( Krajský súd - the former Bratislava City Court).

On 24 May 1999 the Regional Court delivered a judgment in the proceedings concerning the preliminary issue.

On 22 June 1999 the president of the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint of 24 March 1999. The letter stated that the case could only be proceeded after the preliminary issue was determined by a final decision.

On 4 August 1999 the case file concerning the preliminary issue was transmitted to the Supreme Court for a decision on appeal against the first instance judgment.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning her case have lasted unreasonably long.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that the proceedings concerning her case have lasted unreasonably long. She alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that 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 applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings which began on 9 November 1994 and which have not yet ended. The period to be considered has lasted six years and more than four months.

The Government object that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as she ( i ) did not file a complaint about undue delays in the proceedings concerning the preliminary issue pursuant to the State Administration of Justice Act and (ii) failed to comply with the formal requirements in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

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, application no. 48672/99, decision of 18 January 2001, with further reference).

The Court notes that the applicant filed complaints about delays in the proceedings to the president of the Bratislava City Court and to the Ministry of Justice on 12 September 1996, on 12 December 1996 and also on 24 March 1999.

Furthermore, the applicant challenged the Bratislava City Court’s decision to stay the proceedings concerning her case. She contested the City Court’s view that a preliminary issue had to be determined in a separate set of proceedings. Thus the applicant raised before the domestic authorities the arguments which she now submits to the Court.

In these circumstances, the Court finds that the application cannot be rejected for the applicant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

As to the merits, the applicant submits that the decision to stay the proceedings was erroneous and has resulted in considerable delays. In her view, the overall length of the proceedings has been excessive.

The Government admit that there were delays in the proceedings during the period from 9 November 1994 to 18 September 1996. As to the subsequent period, i.e. after the decision to stay the proceedings pending the determination of a preliminary issue, the Government maintain that the first instance court could not proceed with the case for objective reasons.

The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established by its case-law on the question of “reasonable time”, and having regard to all the material in its possession, that an examination of the merits of the complaint is required.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Registrar President