FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8790/19
Jaroslav JUNAS
against Slovakia
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 March 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Raffaele Sabato, President,
Alena Poláčková,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 February 2019,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The details of the applicant, a Slovak national, are set out in the appended table.
2. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the restitution proceedings before the Martin Land Office was communicated to the Slovak Government (“the Government”) on 17 December 2020. Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.
3. On 29 December 2004 the applicant’s legal predecessor lodged a restitution claim with the Martin Land Office. According to the Government, on 21 March 2005 the Land Office stayed the proceedings for 180 days awaiting the amendment of the claim.
4. In April 2013 the applicant’s predecessor died. In the middle of October 2013, a notary informed the Land Office of the death and that the applicant and his sister had been indicated as heirs. The Land Office decided to stay the restitution proceedings while awaiting the final decision in the inheritance proceedings.
5. On four occasions between 2014 and 2017 the Land Office requested that the Martin District Court, as well as the notary, send it the inheritance certificate. This was done after its last request in January 2017.
6. As further follows from the Government’s observations, on 6 July 2016 the applicant signed a deed renouncing the restitution claim in favour of his sister. In the end of July 2016, the inheritance proceedings ended, and the decision became final, confirming the applicant as well as his sister as heirs.
7. On 16 October 2016 the applicant and his sister lodged a constitutional complaint challenging the length of the proceedings before the Land Office and complaining of the violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions as a result of the excessive length of the restitution proceedings.
8. On 17 March 2017 the Land Office partially granted the claim. The applicant’s sister appealed against that decision arguing, inter alia, that based on the above‑mentioned deed by the applicant, she had become the sole heir to the restitution claim.
9. On 1 August 2017 the applicant and his sister initiated additional inheritance proceedings.
10. The Land Office stayed the restitution proceedings in the end of August 2017, awaiting the final decision in the additional inheritance proceedings.
11. The additional inheritance proceedings ended on 6 April 2018 and the decision became final. The applicant renounced his restitution claim in favour of his sister who was thus confirmed as the sole heir.
12. On 31 May 2018 the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional complaint of 16 October 2016 for lack of jurisdiction. It found that as long as the proceedings were pending before the Land Office, an administrative action for acceleration of the administrative proceedings had to be exhausted prior to a constitutional complaint (IV. US 353/2018).
13. According to the information available in the case file, the restitution proceedings are still pending.
THE LAW
14. The Government submitted, inter alia, that the applicant had intentionally provided the Court with false information and omitted to inform it about facts that concerned the very core of the case. In particular, the applicant had explicitly stated in his application that he had been the heir and thus the legal successor of the original claimant. However, at the time of lodging the application, that is in February 2019, he had been aware that that information was untrue. In this regard the Government referred to the deed signed by the applicant already in July 2016 and to the result of the additional inheritance proceedings that had confirmed the applicant’s sister as the sole heir (see paragraphs 6 and 11 above), as well as to the fact that the applicant had not provided the Court with either of those documents. They further noted that the Constitutional Court had dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint for lack of jurisdiction rather than for lack of standing, since the applicant had not provided the Constitutional Court with the above‑mentioned information and documents either. Finally, the applicant had failed to inform the Court that the restitution proceedings had been stayed in 2005 and then during the first and the additional inheritance proceedings (see paragraphs 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11 above).
15. The applicant submitted that in his application he had provided information which he had deemed relevant for the legal analysis of the length of the restitution proceedings and that it had been their excessive length that had made him renounce the claim. He did not comment on the Government’s specific submissions.
16. The Court notes that relevant principles applicable to the abuse of a right of individual application have been summarised in the Court’s judgment Gross v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014).
17. Having regard to the documents and information submitted by the Government and their content, the Court considers that they concern the very core of the case, in particular the question of the applicant’s victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention of the alleged violation of the Convention and, as the case may be, the amount of just satisfaction to be awarded under Article 41 (see Buzinger v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32133/10, § 21, 16 June 2015).
18. In particular, the Court notes that the applicant did not provide any explanation for his failure to mention in his application the deed of 6 July 2016 by which he had renounced the restitution claim, or the outcome of the additional inheritance proceedings as a result of which he had ceased to be a party to the restitution proceedings, and could no longer claim to be a victim as regards their length after that date. Furthermore, the applicant did not inform the Court that the restitution proceedings had been stayed on three occasions. The fact that the Land Office was objectively prevented from proceeding with the restitution claim for almost three and a half years cannot be ignored by the Court when assessing the length of the restitution proceedings. The Court observes in this regard that the Land Office did not wait passively for the outcome of the inheritance proceedings but regularly monitored their progress (see paragraph 5 above) (see Maxian and Maxianová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 10816/12, §§32-33, 13 December 2016).
19. The Court further notes that the applicant did not mention the above information in his subsequent communication with the Court either. In his letter of 13 October 2020, he reiterated that the restitution proceedings had been pending since 2004 and that his sister acted before the administrative bodies.
20. The Court thus finds it sufficiently established that by omitting to disclose the information in question, the applicant intended to mislead it within the meaning of the established case-law.
21. Accordingly, it is appropriate to reject the application as an abuse of the right of individual application, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 31 March 2022.
Viktoriya Maradudina Raffaele Sabato
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention
(excessive length of administrative proceedings and lack of an effective domestic remedy)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Domestic court
File number
Domestic award
(in euros)
8790/19
06/02/2019
Jaroslav JUNAS
1984
29/12/2004
21/09/2005
22/07/2016
21/03/2005
18/11/2013
28/08/2017
Constitutional Court
IV. US 353/2018
0