SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 43377/98 by Juraj ŽIAČIK against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 27 January 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr M. Fischbach , Mr G. Bonello , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr A. Kovler , judges ,

and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar ;

Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ;

Having regard to the application introduced on 25 May 1998 by Juraj Žiačik against Slovakia and registered on 9 September 1998 under file no. 43377/98 ;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court ;

Having deliberated ;

Decides as follows :

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Slovak national, born in 1956 and living in Martin.

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

On 20 December 1996 the applicant was accused of an offence on the ground that he was involved in attempted sale of explosives.

On 28 January 1997 the applicant was arrested in the context of the criminal proceedings. On 30 January 1997 a judge ordered his release.

On 3 February 1997 the Minister of the Interior dismissed the applicant from the police. The decision referred to the conclusions reached by the Police Corps Inspection Office according to which the applicant had offered to sell Semtex explosive and that on 8 June 1996 he had driven a car in which the police later found 96 kilograms of this explosive. The decision by the Minister of the Interior stated, inter alia , that the applicant had acted contrary to the law and that he had exposed other persons to danger.

On 7 April 1997 the Minister of the Interior dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision stated that the dismissal was based on the applicant’s failure to act in accordance with his duties and that the question whether the applicant had committed an offence remained to be determined in the criminal proceedings. The Minister therefore refused to accept the applicant’s view that his right to be presumed innocent had been violated.

On 26 March 1997 an expert opinion on the applicant’s mental health was submitted to the Žilina Regional Office of Investigation in the context of the criminal proceedings.

On 28 May 1997 the Žilina Regional Prosecutor indicted the applicant of two offences before the Žilina Regional Court ( Krajský súd ).

On 24 October 1997 the applicant complained about unfairness of the proceedings to the Supreme Court ( Najvyšší súd ). His complaint was transmitted to the Žilina Regional Office of Investigation.

On 24 October 1997 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court ( Ústavný súd ) about his dismissal and about the proceedings against him. On 9 December 1997 a judge informed the applicant that his submissions disclosed no appearance of a violation of his constitutional rights and in a letter of 19 January 1998 the president of the Constitutional Court upheld this position.

On 18 January 1999 the Minister of Justice informed the applicant that he found no reason for reviewing his predecessor’s decision on the applicant’s dismissal.

On 16 April 1999 the Žilina Regional Court returned the case to the Žilina Regional Prosecutor on the ground that the relevant facts of the case had not been established in the pre-trial proceedings.

On 22 July 1999 the applicant complained to the General Prosecutor’s Office that there had been no progress in his case.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains about the length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him and that his right to be presumed innocent was violated as a result of his dismissal from the police. He alleges a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 as well as of Article 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains about the length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. He alleges a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.

a) As regards the complaint that the proceedings 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.

b) To the extent that the applicant complains about a violation of his right to a fair trial, the Court notes that the proceedings are still pending. Accordingly, the applicant’s complaints about their unfairness and about the lack of an effective remedy in this respect are premature.

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

2. Finally, the applicant complains under Articles 6 § 2 and 13 of the Convention that his right to be presumed innocent was violated in the context of his dismissal from the police.             

The Court notes that it does not appear from the documents submitted that the applicant sought a review of the lawfulness of the decisions on his dismissal by the Supreme Court. In this respect he has not, therefore, exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

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 complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 about the length of the criminal proceedings.

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Registrar President