SECOND SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 43737/98
by František DEGRO
against the Slovak Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 March 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrE. Levits, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 August 1998 and registered on 6 October 1998;
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court;
Having regard to the Court’s decision of 7 September 1999 to communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 7 December 1999 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 7 January 2000;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Slovak national, born in born in 1925 and living in Prešov.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, 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.
On 3 January 1994 the District Court requested the applicant to pay the court fees and invited the defendant company to submit its observations within twenty days.
On 5 January 1994 the applicant paid the court fees.
On 12 January 1994 the judge dealing with the case ordered that a file of the State Notary’s Office in Prešov be submitted. The applicant submits that he joined the relevant documents included in the State Notary’s file to his action of 16 November 1993.
On 25 March 1994 the District Court received the defendant’s memorial.
On 26 April 1994 the judge scheduled a hearing for 12 October 1994. The hearing was adjourned to 17 January 1995 and the defendant was requested to produce documentary evidence. The defendant complied with the request on 19 October 1994.
On 17 January 1995 the case was adjourned as the District Court considered it necessary to examine the file of a different case.
On 22 April 1996 Mototechna s.p. transferred the ownership of the plots in question 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.
On 10 February 1997 the District Court scheduled a further hearing for 29 April 1997. The hearing was not held as the judge dealing with the case and the parties were absent. The applicant submits that he was not summoned.
In a letter of 21 May 1997 the District Court inquired whether the applicant maintained his action.
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 18 June 1997 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 8 October 1997.
On 10 September 1997 the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd) found that the District Court judge was not biased. In its decisions the Regional Court pointed out that there were undue dealys in the proceedings and that the applicant’s right to a hearing within a resonable 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.
The case file was returned to the District Court on 20 October 1997. On the same day the judge scheduled a hearing for 3 December 1997.
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).
On 3 December 1997 the District Court held a hearing. The case was adjourned until 25 February 1998 and the applicant was invited to substantiate his action. The applicant submitted further arguments on 8 December 1997 and on 13 January 1998.
On 25 February 1998 the District Court granted the action and declared the contracts void. The judgment became final on 20 April 1998.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning his action lasted unreasonably long.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced before the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 August 1998 and registered on 6 October 1998.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
On 7 September 1999 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to the respondent Government and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible.
The Government’s written observations were submitted on 7 December 1999. The applicant replied on 7 January 2000.
THE LAW
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 Government admit that the delay between 17 January 1995 and 10 February 1997 is imputable to the Prešov District Court. They further submit that it was open to the applicant to seek redress in this respect earlier than on 1 June 1997.
The applicant maintains that the proceedings lasted unreasonably long.
The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case, the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy