SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 47802/99
by Milan BARLA
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 9 December 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
andMrE. 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 7 September 1998 by Milan Barla against Slovakia and registered on 29 April 1999 under file no. 47802/99;
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 1928 and living in Bratislava.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 27 November 1995 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava III District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd). He challenged the validity of a document by which he had been deprived of inheritance rights.
Between 27 November 1995 and 23 March 1999 three different judges dealt successively with the case and five hearings were held. The case is still pending at first instance.
On 5 February 1997 the head of the Bratislava III District Office (Obvodný úrad) asked the president of the District Court, at the applicant’s request, to accelerate the proceedings.
On 4 May 1998 the applicant’s lawyer complained about the length of the proceedings to the president of the District Court. As no reply was submitted, the applicant lodged a new complaint on 8 June 1998.
On 20 July 1998 the vice-president of the District Court explained to the applicant that the delays in the proceedings were due to the court’s heavy workload.
On 18 January 1998 the applicant complained about delays in the proceedings to the Ministry of Justice. In reply, the vice-president of the District Court reiterated to the applicant that the length of the proceedings was due to the judges’ heavy workload.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal was not respected. He alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1.To the extent that the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in his case have not been fair and that the judges involved have lacked independence and impartiality, the Court notes that the proceedings complained of are still pending. Accordingly, the applicant’s aforesaid complaints 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.The applicant complains that the proceedings concerning his case have 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 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.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings.
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy