Communicated on 17 May 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 12085/16
Július ENGELHARDT
against Slovakia
lodged on 26 February 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Július Engelhardt, is a Czech national who was born in 1969 and lives in Bílovice nad Svitavou, the Czech Republic. He is represented before the Court by Ms Anna Orthová, a lawyer practising in Bratislava.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 30 December 1992 the applicant’s relatives and another individual applied to the Bratislava District Land Office (Obvodný pozemkový úrad) for the restitution of some plots of land, under the Land Ownership Act of 1991. The applicant entered into the proceedings at an unspecified later stage.
Following unsuccessful attempts by the applicant to persuade the District Land Office to proceed further with the matter, he complained about the Land Office’s inactivity to the Bratislava Regional Land Office (Krajský pozemkový úrad) on 15 May 2011. The Regional Land Office acknowledged that there had been excessive delays by the lower authority in the restitution proceedings and instructed it to proceed with the matter by 2 August 2011. The District Land Office failed to meet the deadline.
On 20 December 2011 the applicant brought an action in the courts about the District Land Office’s inactivity, relying on Article 250t § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”) (konanie proti nečinnosti orgánu verejnej správy).
On 19 April 2012 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action on the grounds that the Land Office was short of staff and overburdened with complex and time-consuming restitution claims. It also noted that the Land Office had carried out an active correspondence with the applicant and had therefore not caused any undue delays.
The applicant lodged two constitutional complaints.
Firstly, he complained about the excessive length of the proceedings at the District Land Office.
On 23 August 2012 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint owing to a lack of jurisdiction. The Constitutional Court relied on Article 250t § 1 of the CCP and held that the applicant should have made a fresh challenge to the alleged inactivity of the Land Office before the Regional Court. Even though the applicant had already been unsuccessful when using such a remedy, the Regional Court continued to have jurisdiction over actions of that type, in accordance with Article 246 § 1 of the CCP.
Secondly, the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings before the Regional Court and that the Regional Court had acted unfairly in dismissing his complaint about the Land Office’s alleged inactivity.
On 16 January 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings before the Regional Court as manifestly ill-founded. In respect of the unfairness complaint, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing, quashed the Regional Court’s decision and remitted the applicant’s case for fresh examination. It ordered the Regional Court to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs. It also awarded just satisfaction in respect of non‑pecuniary damage of 2,000 euros (EUR) to the applicant.
On 11 April 2013 the Regional Court ordered the District Land Office to proceed with the applicant’s case and to decide on his restitution claim within 60 days, that is, by 13 July 2013.
On 12 July 2012 the District Land Office suspended the restitution proceedings.
Following a complaint by the applicant to the Public Prosecution Service, the Bratislava II district prosecutor instructed the District Land Office to rectify any undue delays in the proceedings.
Owing to continued inactivity by the Land Office, the applicant lodged a second action with the Regional Court challenging the inactivity of the Land Office, under Article 250t § 1 of the CCP.
On 27 May 2015 the Regional Court delivered a decision which became final on 8 July 2015. It ordered the District Land Office to proceed with the restitution case and to decide on the merits of the applicant’s claim within three months of its final decision, that is, by 8 October 2015. It sanctioned the Land Office with a fine of EUR 1,000, which it had to pay to the State authorities.
On 11 September 2015 the District Land Office dismissed the applicant’s claim in part.
The District Land Office is still considering the remaining part of the applicant’s restitution claim.
B. Relevant domestic law
Code of Civil Procedure (no. 99/1963 Coll.)
Chapter 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs the administrative judiciary. In accordance with its provisions, administrative tribunals review the lawfulness of decisions taken by public administration authorities by way of administrative‑law actions under Section (Hlava) 2 of that Chapter and administrative‑law appeals under Section 3 of that Chapter. Administrative tribunals also have jurisdiction to review complaints concerning the inactivity of public administration authorities (Section 4). The latter rules entered into force on 1 January 2003.
Under Article 250t § 1, any natural or legal person who alleges that a public administration authority is not dealing with a matter in a timely fashion, contrary to law and without a good reason, may apply to an administrative tribunal for an order instructing the authority concerned to proceed with the matter and to decide on it. However, such a remedy may be pursued only after the exhaustion of all ordinary remedies available, in accordance with the relevant legislation. Under Article 250u any failure by the authority to comply with a judicial order is punishable by a fine of up to EUR 3,280.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that regard.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. If domestic remedies have been exhausted, was the length of the restitution proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention, despite the fact that
he twice used an action pursuant to Article 250t § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as required by the Constitutional Court, but to no avail, andthe aforesaid action does not appear to be capable of affording any compensation for non-pecuniary damage?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy