THIRD SECTION
Application no. 49188/11
Stanislav HUČKO
against Slovakia
lodged on 2 August 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Stanislav Hučko, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Otley, United Kingdom.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1998 a former partner sued the applicant for a sum of money in the context of dissolution of their partnership. On 8 January 2001 the applicant filed a counterclaim.
The case was dealt with by courts at two levels.
On 27 April 2009 the Humenné District Court dismissed both parties’ claims. It found the claim lodged by the applicant to have lapsed.
On 12 February 2010 the Prešov Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal as having been lodged out of time.
The Regional Court’s decision was served on the applicant several times due to difficulties in obtaining a certificate about its service. A District Court’s stamp on the decision indicates that it acquired final effect on 13 December 2010.
In the meantime, on 10 May 2010, the applicant unsuccessfully requested the General Prosecutor’s Office to lodge an extra-ordinary appeal on points of law on his behalf. He argued, with reference to several documents, that he had appealed within the statutory time-limit.
On 12 January 2011 the applicant posted a complaint to the Constitutional Court. He alleged a breach of his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time in the proceedings before the ordinary courts. The applicant affirmed that the complaint was lodged within two months from 12 November 2010 when he had been notified that his petition to the General Prosecutor’s Office had been set aside.
On 3 February 2011 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as having been lodged outside the statutory time-limit of two months. It held that the applicant should have lodged his complaint within two months from the service of the Regional Court’s decision. Albeit the date of service of that decision was unknown, the Constitutional Court considered that it had been served not later than on 10 May 2010, the date of the applicant’s petition to the General Prosecutor’s Office. However, he had posted his constitutional complaint on 12 January 2011 only. His petition to the General Prosecutor’s Office could not affect the position as it concerned an extra-ordinary remedy.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
Section 53(3) of the Constitutional Court Act 1993 provides that a complaint to the Constitutional Court may be lodged within two months of the date on which the decision in question has become final and binding or on which a measure has been notified or notice of other interference with the complainant’s interests has been given. As regards measures and other types of interference, this period commences when the complainant has a practical possibility of becoming aware of them.
As regards complaints about ordinary courts’ decisions in the context of civil proceedings, the Constitutional Court held, in a number of cases, that the above time-limit of two months started running on the day when the contested decisions acquired final effect (e.g. decisions II. ÚS 99/2010 of 4 March 2010, IV. ÚS 188/2010 of 19 May 2010, III. ÚS 106/2010 of 9 March 2010 or II. ÚS 298/2010 of 24 June 2010).
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair hearing by a tribunal was breached as a result of the dismissal of both his appeal against the Humenné District Court’s judgment of 27 April 2009 and his complaint to the Constitutional Court.
2. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant complains that the courts refused to grant his claim.
3. The applicant complains that in the above proceedings he was discriminated against contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.
4. Finally, the applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy at his disposal.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was his right of access to a court respected as regards the Constitutional Court’s decision to dismiss his complaint as having been lodged belatedly?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy