THIRD SECTION

Application no. 14090/10 Ján FRANEK against Slovakia lodged on 18 February 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ján Franek, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Liptovský Mikuláš . He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Slamka , a lawyer practising in Dolný Kubín .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant is an enforcement officer. In the context of enforcement proceedings he seized movable property of a company with a view to having it sold. Subsequently bankruptcy proceedings were brought against the debtor. Its administrator in bankruptcy asked the applicant to transmit the movables to him in accordance with what the law required in similar cases. The applicant stored some of the items in the premises of a company which was one of the creditors of the debtor in bankruptcy. The representatives of that creditor decided to retain the movables until the debtor acquitted the debt. As a result, the applicant was unable to put the property at the disposal of the administrator in bankruptcy of the company in issue.

On 21 October 2003 the Liptovský Mikuláš District Court granted the claim of the administrator in bankruptcy and ordered the applicant to transmit the movables to the plaintiff within fifteen days. It further ordered the applicant to reimburse the plaintiff ’ s costs amounting to EUR 1,130 .

On 14 April 2005 the Žilina Regional Court quashed the judgment. It held that the first-instance court had not duly examined whether the applicant had standing in the case as defendant given that the property in issue was being retained by a different person.

In a letter of 14 March 2006 the applicant asked the District Court to adjourn the hearing scheduled for 21 March 2006 as he was on sick-leave.

On 21 March 2006 the District Court, after having taken further evidence, again ordered the applicant to transmit the property to the administrator in bankruptcy and to reimburse the latter ’ s costs amounting to EUR 1,964. The District Court held that under the relevant law the property had been at the applicant ’ s disposal. The creditor company where the applicant had stored the property had no obligation in respect of the administration in bankruptcy. In those circumstances, the applicant ’ s argument that the creditor had availed itself of the right to retain the property could not be upheld.

The judgment indicated that the applicant had not submitted any document proving that he was unable to attend the hearing. The District Court therefore proceeded with the case in his absence.

On 6 September 2007 the Žilina Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The decision on the claim in issue became final on 10 December 2007.

The applicant filed an appeal on points of law. Relying on Article 237(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure he argued that the first-instance court had not accepted his excuse and had proceeded with the case in his absence. The applicant further argued, among other things, that he had no standing as defendant in the case and that the lower courts had decided arbitrarily.

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law on 7 April 2009. It noted that the applicant had not submitted any document to the District Court which would support his argument that his health had prevented him from attending the hearing on 21 March 2006. In those circumstances, the District Court had been entitled to proceed with the case and it had not prevented the applicant from asserting his rights in the proceedings within the meaning of Article 237(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a result, the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law was inadmissible, and the Supreme Court could not deal with his arguments as to the alleged unfairness of the proceedings.

On 12 June 2009 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint. He alleged a breach of Article 6 of the Convention in the proceedings leading to the decisions of the above ordinary courts at three levels. In particular, the applicant alleged that the courts had decided in an arbitrary manner, had disregarded the fact that he had no standing in the case as defendant and that the District Court had proceeded with the case in his absence.

The Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint on 17 September 2009. It held that the complaint had been lodged outside the statutory time-limit of two months in respect of the first-instance and appeal court ’ s decisions which had become final on 10 December 2007. As the Supreme Court had declared inadmissible the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law, and since the Constitutional Court found no reason for disagreeing with that conclusion, the use of that remedy could not affect the running of the above time-limit in respect of the judgments of the District Court and the Regional Court .

The Constitutional Court further examined the reasons for the Supreme Court ’ s decision and concluded that they were neither arbitrary nor otherwise contrary to his right to a fair hearing.

B. Relevant domestic law

Pursuant to Article 237(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal on points of law against an appellate court ’ s judgment is available when a court by its conduct has prevented a party from acting before it.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that his rights to a fair hearing by a tribunal and to an effective remedy were breached in the proceedings before the ordinary courts and the Constitutional Court .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, is the way in which the Constitutional Court dealt with the applicant ’ s complaint compatible with the applicant ’ s right of access to a court (see also, mutatis mutandis , Stavebná spoločnosť TATRY Poprad , s.r.o . v. Slovakia , no. 7261/06 , §§ 43 and 45-46, 3 May 2011, with further references)?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?