Search
document

Document text Analytics

MACOSKO v. CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Doc ref: 21026/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1455

Document date: December 10, 1992

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

MACOSKO v. CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Doc ref: 21026/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1455

Document date: December 10, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 21026/92

by Ján MACOSKO

against Czechoslovakia

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

10 December 1992, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 11 May 1992 by Ján

Macosko against Czechoslovakia and registered on 3 December 1992 under

file No. 21026/92;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

The applicant, a citizen of the CSFR born in 1946, is a pensioner

residing at Kosice.

In 1975 the applicant, who was then employed in steel works,

participated in a football match organised by a trade union. During

the match the applicant was injured. He became an invalid and received

certain daily allowances and an invalidity pension. He attempted to

obtain compensation for the injury on the ground that it had

constituted an industrial accident, but on 22 June 1979 the Public

Prosecutor of the Slovak Republic dismissed this request.

In 1991 the applicant discovered a document of the proceedings

terminated on 22 June 1979 which he believed had been falsified. His

attempt to introduce criminal proceedings in particular against the

judge concerned was refused on 18 February 1992 by the Public

Prosecutor. The applicant then filed a request for the reopening of

the previous proceedings with the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud).

The Court dismissed the applicant's request on 2 July 1992.

The applicant complains of the unfairness of the proceedings

before the Public Prosecutor and the Constitutional Court. He also

complains that the funds he has received do not permit him to found a

family. Finally he alleges that he cannot effectively complain about

the refusal of compensation. The applicant does not invoke any

provisions of the Convention.

The Commission has examined these complaints under Articles 6,

12 and 13 of the Convention, respectively.

Insofar as the applicant complains under Article 6 of the

Convention of the unfairness of the proceedings before the

Constitutional Court, and under Article 13 of the Convention that he

did not have an effective remedy at his disposal, the Commission

considers that these proceedings concerned either the introduction of

criminal proceedings against third persons or the reopening of previous

proceedings. However, such proceedings do not involve the

determination of a civil right or a criminal charge within the meaning

of Article 6 of the Convention (see No. 7761/77, Dec. 8.5.78, D.R. 14

p. 171). The Convention not guaranteeing a right to introduce criminal

proceedings against third persons or the reopening of proceedings,

Article 13 of the Convention is also not applicable. In this respect

the application must be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae

with the provisions of the Convention in application of Article 27

para. 2 of the Convention.

Insofar as the applicant complains under Article 12 of the

Convention that he could not found a family for lack of funds, and even

assuming that the applicant has complied with the requirements under

Article 26 of the Convention as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies,

the Commission finds that no issue arises under this provision. It

follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. Krüger) (C.A. Nørgaard)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant