SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 51232/99 by Vladimír VIDRA against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 2 March 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr B. Conforti, President,

Mr G. Bonello,

Mrs V. Strážnická,

Mr P. Lorenzen,

Mr A.B. Baka,

Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska

Mr A. Kovler, judges ,

and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced on 29 June 1999 and registered on 22 September 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Slovak national, born in 1957 and living in Ž ilina .

A. Particular circumstances of the case

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

Criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 30 June 1997 the District Investigation Office in Ž ilina brought criminal proceedings against the applicant. The applicant was accused of fraud on the ground that he had received 1,2 million Slovak korunas for a fictitious financial transaction. On 24 July 1997 the District Prosecutor’s Office in Ž ilina dismissed the applicant’s complaint against this decision.

On 19 February 1998 the applicant requested the Public Prosecutor’s Office to order further evidence to be taken.

On 6 May 1998 the public prosecutor filed an indictment to the Ž ilina District Court ( Okresn ý súd ).

On 23 June 1998 the Ž ilina District Court returned the case to the public prosecutor. The District Court shared the applicant’s view that the case had not been properly investigated into and ordered further comprehensive evidence to be taken. On 22 September 1998 the Ž ilina Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) dismissed the public prosecutor’s complaint against the District Court’s decision.

On 6 November 1998 the case file was returned to the police investigator.

On 5 January 1999 the applicant complained to the public prosecutor that the police investigator lacked impartiality. On 5 February 1999 the public prosecutor instructed the investigator to remedy the shortcoming in the proceedings.

On 24 September 1999 the applicant challenged the Ž ilina police investigators. He alleged that the proceedings lasted unreasonably long and that the investigators lacked impartiality as they worked as external lecturers for one of the witnesses against him.

On 11 October 1999 the Ministry of the Interior refused to exclude the Ž ilina police investigators from dealing with the case.

On 13 December 1999 the Žilina District Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal proceedings on the ground that the applicant had committed no offence. The decision was served on 9 February 2000.

Withdrawal of the applicant’s passports

On 28 October 1997 the Border and Foreigners Police Department in Ž ilina withdrew the applicant’s passport pursuant to Section 17 (b) of Travel Documents and Travelling Abroad Act of 1991 (see “Relevant domestic law” below).

The applicant possessed another passport. It was withdrawn from him pursuant to Section 19 (1) (b) of the Travel Documents Act of 1997 on 28 January 1998.

Subsequently the applicant requested, on several occasions, that the passport be returned to him. He argued that the accusation against him was unsubstantiated, that there was no need for preventing him from travelling abroad as his property in Slovakia was a sufficient guarantee for his appearing before the court and that he was prevented from contacting his business partners abroad whereby the limited company of which he is the sole owner was brought in a difficult financial position.

On 27 July 1999 the Border and Foreigners Police Department in Ž ilina delivered another decision in which it found that the applicant’s passport could not be restored for reasons set out in Section 19 (1) (b) of the Travel Documents Act. On 29 September 1999 the Ministry of the Interior dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

The applicant sought redress before the Supreme Court ( Najvyšší súd ) . On 27 January 2000 the latter quashed the administrative decisions of  27 July 1999 and 29 September 1999. The Supreme Court held that the administrative authorities had not considered all relevant facts of the case and that they had acted contrary to both the Travel Documents Act of 1997 and the Administrative Proceedings Act of 1967. The case was sent back to the Ministry of the Interior.

B. Relevant domestic law

Section 191 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when the court returns a case back to the public prosecutor for further investigation, such investigation should be carried out, as a rule, within a month after the case file was returned to the public prosecutor together with the court’s final decision.

Section 17 (b) of the Travel Documents and Travelling Abroad Act of 1991 ( Zákon o cestovných dokladoch a cestovaní do zahraničia ) provides that the delivery of a passport can be refused or that a passport can be withdrawn from a person against whom criminal proceedings are pending. This Act was replaced by the Travel Documents Act of 1997 ( Zákon o cestovných dokladoch , in force from 1 January 1998) Section 19 (1) (b) of which contains the same provision.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair and lasted unreasonably long.

The applicant further complains about the withdrawal of his passports and about the refusal to restore them to him. He alleges a violation of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 and, in substance, also a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

THE LAW [Note1]

1 . The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair and lasted unreasonably long. He alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which provides, so far as relevant, as follows:

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by a[n] ... tribunal ...”

a) To the extent that the applicant complains about the length of the criminal proceedings, 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) [Note2] of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.

b) The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair.

The Court notes that the proceedings complained of were discontinued. In these circumstances, the applicant cannot claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.

2. The applicant complains about the withdrawal of his passports and about the refusal to restore them to him. He alleges a violation of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 and, in substance, also a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

The Court notes that the applicant failed to seek a judicial review of the administrative decisions delivered in 1997 and 1998. In this respect he has not, therefore, exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

The Court further notes that the proceedings concerning the administrative decisions delivered on 27 July 1999 and on 29 September 1999 respectively are still pending. Accordingly, the applicant’s complaints in this respect are premature.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant ’s complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings.

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Erik Fribergh Benedetto Conforti Registrar President

[Note1] In your reasoning specify: Complaint / Article of the Convention [/ Succinct summary of Government’s submissions / Succinct summary of applicant’s submissions in communicated case] / Court’s [Commission’s] case-law, if any / Application of case-law to facts of particular case or considerations for specific facts of case.

Remember to use automatic paragraph numbering ( Alt+N ) followed by a tab.

[Note2] Change as necessary.