AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 21028/92
by H.N.
against Czechoslovakia
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10
December 1992, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 2 January 1992 by
H.N against Czechoslovakia and registered on 3 December 1992 under file
No. 21028/92;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
21028/92 - 2 -
The applicant, a citizen of the CSFR born in 1946, is employed
in a bookshop. She resides at Prague.
Insofar as it can be determined from the applicant's submissions,
the applicant's father emigrated to Switzerland in 1968 whereupon
property of the family in Czechoslovakia was expropriated by the State.
In 1991 the father, who presently still resides in Switzerland,
apparently transferred part of the property to the applicant as a
donation.
The applicant applied to various authorities for the restitution
of the property. On 25 October 1991 the Ministry of Finance informed
the applicant that her father could not donate property to her as the
property had not been restituted to him. On 26 February 1992 the
magistrature (Obecní úrad) of Prostejov refused the applicant's request
for restitution as the father was still alive.
The applicant's appeal was declared inadmissible by the
Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) on 8 July 1992 with reference to
Section 23 para. 2 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (Zákon o
organizaci Ústavního soudu). According to this provision, the Court
may declare an appeal inadmissible inter alia if the applicant is not
qualified (neoprávneny subjekt) to file an appeal.
The applicant complains, without reference to any particular
provision of the Convention, that she cannot apply for restitution of
the property. The applicant also complains of her father's arrest and
detention prior to, and other circumstances surrounding, his
emigration.
The Commission has examined the applicant's separate complaints
as they have been submitted by her. However, after considering these
complaints as a whole, and insofar as these complaints are within its
competence, the Commission finds that they do not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. Krüger) (C.A. Nørgaard)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy