SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 47804/99
by Karol HAVALA
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 20 January 2000 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 15 February 1999 by Karol Havala against Slovakia and registered on 29 April 1999 under file no. 47804/99;
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 1929 and living in Trnava.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 June 1991 the applicant challenged the termination of his membership in an agricultural co-operative before the Trnava District Court (Okresný súd). On 23 October 1991 the latter granted the action. The defendant appealed.
On 19 February 1992 the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) dismissed the applicant’s action on the ground that it had been lodged belatedly.
On 24 July 1992 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) quashed the Regional Court’s judgment.
On 21 October 1992 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the Trnava District Court’s judgment of 23 October 1991.
On 26 March 1993 the applicant claimed damages resulting from the termination of his membership in the co-operative before the Trnava District Court. On 20 September 1993 the latter granted a part of the applicant’s claims.
On 31 January 1994 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment on the ground that the reasons for it were insufficient.
On 5 May 1994 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice about delays in the proceedings and that the there had been shortcomings in the way his case was dealt with.
On 15 July 1994 the applicant requested the exclusion of the Trnava District Court’s judge dealing with his case.
On 24 October 1994 the Trnava District Court delivered a new judgment partly granting the applicant’s claim for damages.
On 31 July 1995 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment on the ground that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case. The case was transferred to another chamber of the Regional Court.
On 24 June 1996 the Ministry of Justice admitted, in reply to a complaint lodged by the applicant, that there had been undue delays in the proceedings.
On 24 January 1997 the president of the Bratislava Regional Court apologised to the applicant for delays in the proceedings and informed him that a hearing was scheduled for 28 January 1997.
On 22 April 1997 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the action on the ground that the applicant failed to show that he had suffered damage. On 22 December 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Regional Court had not established the relevant facts of the case.
On 30 January 1998 the applicant requested the exclusion of the Regional Court judges dealing with his case on the ground that they lacked independence and impartiality. He alleged, in particular, that the judges had decided on his claim erroneously and that they had caused delays in the proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the request on 24 August 1998.
On 30 November 1998 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action of 26 March 1993. On 28 December 1998 the applicant appealed.
On 15 July 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s judgment of 30 November 1998. The Supreme Court found that the applicant was entitled to compensation and held that it was for the first instance court to determine the amount.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, about delays in the proceedings and that his right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal has not been respected.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains that the proceedings concerning his action for damages have been unfair and that the judges dealing with his case lack independence and impartiality. He alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
The Court notes that the proceedings complained of are still pending. Accordingly, the applicant’s complaints about their unfairness and about the lack of independence and impartiality of the judges involved 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 further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the proceedings concerning his case have lasted unreasonably long.
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