SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION [Note1]

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 41262/98 by D.K.

against Slovakia [Note2]

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 13 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 23 March 1998 by D.K. against Slovakia and registered on 18 May 1998 under file no. 41262/98;

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 1944 and living in Košice .

A. Particular circumstances of the case

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

On 11 December 1996 the applicant lodged an action for protection of his good name and reputation with the Košice I District Court ( Okresný súd ). He claimed that his registration in the files kept by the Slovak Information Service as a collaborator of the former secret police within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (b) of Act No. 451/1991 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below) had no justification. The applicant further requested that the entry concerning his person should be deleted from the files.

On 8 January 1997 the District Court asked the Slovak Information Service to submit its memorial on the action. The defendant complied with the request on 28 January 1997.

On 10 February 1997 the applicant submitted his observations in reply. He pointed out, in particular, that the defendant had offered no proof and asked the District Court to find that the entry concerning his person was erroneous and to order the Slovak Information Agency to delete his name from the former State Security files.

On 28 May 1997 the applicant requested the District Court to decide on his action.

On 11 August 1997 the applicant complained to the president of the District Court that there had been no progress in his case.

On 13 August 1997 the president of the District Court admitted that there had been delays in the proceedings due to the transfer of the judge dealing with the case to another court.

On 20 August 1997 the applicant lodged a petition with the Constitutional Court ( Ústavný súd ) alleging that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time.

On 2 September 1997 the applicant complained about undue delays in the proceedings to the president of the Košice Regional Court ( Krajský súd ).

On 13 November 1997 the Košice I District Court held the first hearing in the case.

On 18 November 1997 the applicant submitted documentary evidence to the District Court.

On 7 January 1998 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delays had been violated. It noted, in particular, that the District Court had failed to decide on the action within a year after its introduction as required by Section 200i (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On 15 January 1998 the Košice I District Court held another hearing.

On 19 January 1998 the applicant submitted to the District Court, at the latter’s request, a proposal as regards the evidence to be taken.

On 19 February 1998 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. The judgment stated that the relevant facts of the case were secret and that the evidence available indicated that the action was manifestly ill-founded.

On 30 March 1998 the applicant appealed to the Košice Regional Court. He complained, in particular, that the District Court had not established all relevant facts of the case.

On 27 August 1998 the Supreme Court ( Najvyšší súd ) transferred the case to the Prešov Regional Court.

On 30 October 1998 the Košice I District Court  dismissed the applicant’s request for waiver of the court fees. The applicant appealed.

On 10 January 1999 the applicant informed the Prešov Regional Court that he wished to withdraw his action of 11 December 1996 and requested the waiver of court fees.

On 24 February 1999 the Prešov Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings in accordance with the applicant’s request. The Regional Court further upheld the District Court’s decision of 30 October 1998 and ordered the applicant to pay the defendant’s fees.

On 9 June 1999 the applicant complained to the president of the Prešov Regional Court  that it had failed to decide on his claim that he had not been an agent of the former State Security. The applicant alleged, with reference to his earlier submissions, that he had not withdrawn this part of his action and asked the court to proceed with it without delay. He asked for eight witnesses to be heard.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Section 2 (1) (b) of Act No. 451/1991 provides that persons registered as, inter alia ,  informers or ideological collaborators of the State Security may not exercise certain functions in State bodies and institutions.

Proceedings concerning actions for protection of a person’s good name and reputation are governed by Section 200i of the Code of Civil Procedure. The following provisions are relevant in the applicant’s case.

Section 200i (3) required that the defendant should submit observations on an action within thirty days from its receipt and, as the case might be, to propose the evidence to be taken by the court. In case that the defendant failed to do so, the court was entitled to decide on the case on the basis of the claimant’s submissions.

On 11 November 1997 the Constitutional Court found the aforesaid provision to be contrary to the Constitution. Following the publication of the Constitutional Court’s finding on 20 December 1997, Section 200i (3) ceased to be effective.

Section 200i (4) provides that courts must decide on actions for protection of a person’s good name and reputation within a year after their introduction.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning his case lasted unreasonably long. He alleges that the Constitutional Court’s finding on delays in the proceedings of 7 January 1998 is only of a declaratory nature and that under Slovak law he has no possibility of obtaining compensation for non-pecuniary damage which he suffered as a result of the delays in the proceedings.

The applicant further complains that by delaying the case the Košice I District Court violated his right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, he  alleges that as a result of the Constitutional Court’s finding declaring unconstitutional Section 200i (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure the burden of  proof was shifted on him.

THE LAW [Note3]

1. The applicant complains that the proceedings concerning his case lasted unreasonably long. He alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint. 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.

2. The applicant further complains  that by delaying the case the Košice I District Court violated his right to a fair hearing. In particular, he complains that as a result of the Constitutional Court’s finding declaring unconstitutional Section 200i (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure the burden of proof was shifted on him. He alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The Court notes that the Prešov Regional Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had withdrawn his action. In these circumstances, the applicant cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.

The complaint about unfairness of the proceedings concerning the remaining claim which, according to the applicant, is not covered by the Prešov Regional Court’s decision of 24 February 1999 is premature as these proceedings appear to be still pending.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings concerning the action for protection of his good name and reputation.

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis              Registrar              President

[Note1] Do not forget to block text with Alt+B in order to avoid that the information in the highlighted zones disappears.

[Note2] First letter in capital letters plus the article according to normal speech.

[Note3] 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.