SECOND SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 48672/99 by Jaroslav NEMEC and Others against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) , sitting on 18 January 2001 a s 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 on 1 March 1999 and registered on 8 June 1999,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, whose names appear in the appendix, are Slovak national s .

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

On 27 July 1990 the applicants lodged a copyright action with the Bratislava III District Court (then Obvodný súd , at present Okresný súd ). They claimed 10,750,000 Slovak korunas on the ground that a software created by them had been sold to a third person.

On 27 November 1991 the District Court decided that an expert opinion be submitted. It appointed an expert on 30 May 1992. Subsequently the expert informed the court that he was unable to submit an opinion.

On 6 November 1992 the District Court appointed a different expert. On 21 December 1992 the latter informed the court that he was not qualified in the area concerned.

On 17 May 1993 the applicants proposed an expert whom the District Court appointed on 15 June 1993. At the expert’s request an ad hoc software expert was appointed as well. The ad hoc expert was sworn in on 20 January 1994. The expert opinion was submitted on 22 September 1994.

In the meanwhile, on 31 August 1994, the Bratislava City Court ( Mestský súd ) upheld the first instance decision on an advance payment of the experts’ fees. The case-file was returned to the District Court on 7 October 1994.

On 5 December 1994 the District Court delivered an interim judgment in which it found, with reference to the expert opinion, that the software in question was covered by copyright.

On 13 February 1995 one of the defendants requested that the interim judgment be amended. The request was dismissed on 6 December 1995. On 18 January 1996 the defendant appealed. The case-file was transmitted to the Bratislava City Court on 29 March 1996. The City Court upheld the first instance judgment on 13 June 1996. The City Court’s judgment was served on 26 August 1996.

Subsequently the case was allocated to another judge in the context of restructuring of the Bratislava III District Court.

At a hearing held on 2 July 1997 the applicants withdrew their claim against one of the defendants who had gone bankrupt.

On 16 July and on 5 August 1997 the parties submitted further documents at the District Court’s request.

The next hearing was held on 3 June 1998. The case was adjourned with a view to obtaining further evidence.

On 9 June 1998 the District Court ordered a document to be translated from German. The translation was submitted on 23 June 1998.

A hearing scheduled for 9 September 1998 had to be adjourned as the judge was ill.

On 21 October 1998 the District Court adjourned the case as it was necessary to obtain an expert opinion on the value of the software. On 18 January 1999 the court requested the parties for assistance in finding a suitable expert.

On 3 February 1999 the applicants claimed that an expert opinion was not necessary and requested that the relevant decision be quashed.

On 18 August 1999 the District Court appointed an expert.

On 27 August 1999 the applicants challenged both the expert and the judge dealing with the case. They also appealed against the decision ordering them to pay an advance on the expert’s fees.

On 17 November 1999 the case-file was submitted to the Bratislava Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) which dismissed the request for exclusion of the District Court judge on 30 November 1999. The case-file was returned to the Bratislava III District Court on 8 December 1999.

On 21 February 2000 the case-file was again sent to the Bratislava Regional Court for a decision on the applicants’ above appeal of 27 August 1999. The Regional Court returned the case-file to the District Court on 10 July 2000 after having decided on the applicants’ appeal.

On 4 August 2000 the vice-president of the Bratislava III District Court informed the applicants, in reply to their complaints, that she had found no undue delays in the proceedings. She expressed the view that the length of the proceedings was mainly due to the complex character of the case.

THE LAW

The applicants’ complaint relates to the length of the proceedings which began on 27 July 1990 and are still pending. The period which the Court can take into account began on 18 March 1992 when the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, to which the Slovak Republic is one of the successor states, ratified the Convention and recognised the right of individual petition. The period to be considered has therefore lasted eight years and ten months.

The Government object that the applicants failed to exhaust domestic remedies as they neither lodged a constitutional petition pursuant to Article 130 (3) of the Constitution, nor did they claim damages pursuant to the State Liability Act.

The Court has found earlier that the above remedies need not be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in cases concerning delays in proceedings (see Remšíková v. Slovakia, application no. 46843/99, Court decision of 7 December 2000 ) . It sees no reason for reaching a different conclusion in the present case.

As regards the merits of the case, the applicants allege that the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They maintain that the case raises no serious questions of fact or law and that the length of the proceedings is mainly imputable to the domestic courts. Finally, the applicants point out that the case has not been proceeded with effectively since 21 October 1998.

The Government reject the allegation. They contend that the length of the proceedings is due to the complexity of the case, to the applicants’ conduct and also to the restructuring of the Bratislava III District Court which has dealt with the case.

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 applicants’ conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this 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

A P P E N D I X

LIST OF THE APPLICANTS

1.              Jaroslav NEMEC, who was born in 1959, resides in Bratislava.

2. Jozef HORV ÁTH, who was born in 1958, resides in Bratislava.

3.              Vladimír JORÍK, who was born in 1956, resides in Bratislava.

4.              Ľudovít KALINA, who was born in 1955, resides in Bratislava.

5.              Ján KUÄŒERA, who was born in 1956, resides in Bratislava.

6.              Pavol PLESNÍK, who was born in 1956, resides in Bratislava.

7.              Vladimír RAK, who was born in 1959, resides in Bratislava.

8. Pavol Å TEFANKA, who was born in 1959, resides in Bratislava.