SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 43737/98

by František DEGRO

against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 7 September 1999 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C. Rozakis, President ,

Mr M. Fischbach,

Mr G. Bonello,

Mrs V. Strážnická,

Mr P. Lorenzen,

Mr A.B. Baka,

Mr E. Levits, Judges ,

with 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 15 August 1998 by Mr František Degro against Slovakia and registered on 6 October 1998 under file no. 43737/98;

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 1925 and living in Prešov.

A. Particular circumstances of the case

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

On 16 November 1993 the applicant lodged an action with the Prešov District Court (Okresný súd) against Mototechna s.p., a state owned company with its central office in Prague. He alleged that two contracts of 1975 concerning the sale of land to the defendant company were void as he had not signed them.

The District Court held two hearings on 12 October 1994 and on 17 January 1995 respectively. On both occasions the proceedings were adjourned at the defendant's request.

On 22 April 1996 Mototechna s.p. transferred the ownership of the plots covered by the above two contracts to a Slovak limited company with registered office in Stropkov. On 14 August 1996 the latter transferred the plots to another limited company with registered office in Prešov.

A third hearing before the Prešov District Court was scheduled for 29 April 1997. It was not held as the judge was ill.

On 1 June 1997 the applicant challenged the District Court judge dealing with the case on the ground that the proceedings lasted unreasonably long.                          

On 10 September 1997 the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd) found that the judge was not biased. In its decisions the Regional Court pointed out that there were undue delays in the proceedings and that the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 48 (2) of the Constitution was not respected. The Regional Court expressed the view that the case should be proceeded with diligence.

On 3 November 1997 the applicant complained about the proceedings to the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). On 25 November 1997 a judge of the Constitutional Court informed the applicant, inter alia , that he could complain about the delays in the proceedings to the president of the Prešov District Court and subsequently, as the case might be, to the president of the competent regional court in accordance with the relevant provisions of the State Administration of Justice Act of 1992 (Zákon o štátnej správe súdov).

A hearing before the District Court was held on 3 December 1997.

On 25 February 1998 the District Court granted the applicant's action and declared the contracts void. The judgment became final on 20 April 1998.

On 27 April 1998 and on 4 June 1998 the applicant invited the Mototechna s.p.'s central office in Prague to conclude new sale contracts in respect of the plots in question and to pay damages to him. On 8 June 1998 the applicant addressed a similar claim to the Slovak limited company which is entered in the land registry as the owner of the land. He received no reply to his letters.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Section 80 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for bringing of proceedings at a proposal seeking the determination of the existence of a legal relation or of a right provided that it is justified by a pressing legal interest.

In accordance with the established practice, a judicial decision declaring a contract void is in itself not sufficient to have a change in ownership of real property formally entered in the land registry. For this purpose the person concerned has to request the determination of his or her property rights by a court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning his action lasted unreasonably long.

The applicant complains that he was deprived of his land unlawfully and that despite the Prešov District Court's finding of 25 February 1998 he has been able neither to exercise his ownership rights in respect of the land nor to receive a compensation. He alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Finally, the applicant alleges a violation of Article 7 § 2 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the proceedings concerning his action 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 his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a[n] ... tribunal...”

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 complains that he was deprived of his land unlawfully and that despite the Prešov District Court's finding of 25 February 1998 he has been able neither to exercise his ownership rights in respect of the land nor to receive a compensation. He alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which provides as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

The Court notes that the applicant neither sought a judicial determination of his property rights in respect of the land in question nor did he lodge an action for damages against the companies concerned. Even assuming that the liability of the respondent parties is involved, this part of the application must be rejected for the applicant's failure to exhaust 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.

3. The Court has also examined the applicant's complaint under Article 7 § 2 of the Convention but finds, to the extent that it has been substantiated and is within its competence, that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention or its Protocols.

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

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaint that the proceedings concerning his case lasted unreasonably long;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Registrar President