AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 32689/96
by Jaroslav KADUBEC
against the Slovak Republic
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 4 March 1998, the following members being present:
MM J.-C. GEUS, President
M.A. NOWICKI
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
Mrs G.H. THUNE
MM F. MARTINEZ
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
A. ARABADJIEV
Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 14 May 1996 by
Jaroslav KADUBEC against the Slovak Republic and registered on
21 August 1996 under file No. 32689/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Slovak national born in 1943. He is
unemployed and resides in Bratislava. The facts of the case, as
submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The Bratislava I Labour Office (Úrad práce) registered the
applicant as a person looking for work. By a letter of
15 December 1994 the applicant informed the Labour Office that he was
obliged to look after his parents and requested that co-operation
between him and the Labour Office be temporarily interrupted.
On 27 December 1994 the Labour Office replied to the applicant
that it was not clear from his submissions whether he requested to be
struck out of the list of persons looking for work.
In a letter of 30 December 1994 the applicant explained to the
Bratislava I Labour Office that he did not wish to be struck out of the
latter's register and that he only asked for a temporary interruption
of his co-operation with the aforesaid authority.
On 5 January 1995 a memorandum was drawn up, in the applicant's
presence, at the Bratislava I Labour Office. It states that the
applicant was informed that under the relevant law he could only
request to be struck out of the list of persons looking for work.
On a separate sheet of paper dated 5 January 1995 and attached
to the memorandum the applicant asked to be struck out of the list of
employment seekers. The applicant explained in it, with reference to
his original request of 15 December 1994, that he could not co-operate
with the Labour Office as he had to look after his close relatives.
On 13 January 1995 the Bratislava I Labour Office, with reference
to the aforesaid memorandum and the applicant's request attached to it,
struck the applicant out of the list of persons looking for work with
effect from 6 January 1995.
The applicant appealed. He challenged exclusively the reasons
for the aforesaid decision and requested that the latter should reflect
the explanations which he had given earlier to the Labour Office.
On 23 January 1995 the Bratislava I Labour Office quashed its
decision of 13 January 1995 and issued a new decision according to
which the applicant was struck out of the list of employment seekers
as from 23 January 1995.
The applicant appealed and claimed, inter alia, that he should
have been struck out of the Labour Office's list with effect from
15 December 1994.
On 2 March 1995 the Bratislava-City Labour Office decided that
the applicant was to be considered as having been struck out of the
list in question with effect from 6 January 1995. It noted that the
applicant had co-operated with the Bratislava I Labour Office until
5 January 1995 when it had become clear that the co-operation could not
continue for both objective reasons and his lack of will in this
respect.
The applicant considered that the reference to his alleged lack
of will to co-operate with the authorities was defamatory. He
requested that the reasons for the decision of the Bratislava-City
Labour Office be modified.
On 2 May 1995 the Bratislava-City Labour Office added to the
reasons for its decision of 2 March 1995 a sentence explaining that the
applicant's lack of will to co-operate with the labour authorities was
motivated by his decision to look after his parents who needed the care
of another person.
On 25 May 1995 the applicant sought a judicial review of the
decision of the Bratislava-City Labour Office of 2 March 1995. He
challenged the latter's finding that he no longer wished to co-operate
with the labour authorities and claimed that the decision in question
should only have stated that objectively he could not co-operate with
the Labour Office as he was looking after his parents. The applicant
also claimed that he should have been struck out of the Bratislava I
Labour Office's register as from 15 December 1994.
On 2 October 1995 the Bratislava City Court (Mestsky súd) granted
the applicant's request for exemption from court fees and for the
appointment of a lawyer. The court noted that representation by a
lawyer was compulsory in the proceedings brought by the applicant.
In a letter of 17 November 1995 the applicant asked the lawyer
for a meeting with a view to discussing the presentation of his case.
On 21 November 1995 the lawyer sent the applicant a copy of his
letter which he had addressed to the City Court on 3 November 1995.
In the letter the lawyer explained that his workload was excessive and
requested that the City Court appoint another lawyer to represent the
applicant.
On 22 November 1995 the applicant informed the Bratislava City
Court that he had not had an opportunity to prepare his case with the
lawyer appointed to assist him. The applicant requested, in case the
court considered that the lawyer was entitled to refuse representing
him, that another lawyer be appointed.
On 21 March 1996 the applicant complained to the president of the
Bratislava City Court's chamber that the court had not proceeded with
his case.
On 9 April 1996 the president of the Bratislava City Court
informed the applicant that the court had decided on his case on
24 November 1995 and that the judgment had been served on his lawyer
on 26 January 1996. The lawyer transmitted a copy of the judgment to
the applicant, at the latter's request, on 23 April 1996.
By the judgment of 24 November 1995 the Bratislava City Court
dismissed the applicant's action. The judgment states that in the
proceedings the applicant was represented by the lawyer who had been
appointed by the court on 10 October 1995. The court did not consider
it necessary to hold an oral hearing in the case. It referred to
Section 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure according to which courts
can deliver a judgment without prior oral hearing in simple cases,
especially when there is no doubt that the administrative authority
established the facts correctly, and the point at issue is a question
of law.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that
his right to a fair and public hearing before a tribunal was not
respected in the proceedings before the Bratislava City Court.
The applicant further complains that he was deprived of an
effective remedy before a national authority and that the way in which
the Bratislava City Court dealt with his case was discriminatory. He
alleges a violation of Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that his right to a fair and public
hearing before a tribunal was not respected in the proceedings before
the Bratislava City Court. He alleges a violation of Article 6
(Art. 6) of the Convention which provides, insofar as relevant, as
follows:
"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
...
The Commission recalls that under the Convention organs' case-
law, for Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) in its "civil" limb to be
applicable, there must be a "dispute" (contestation in the French text)
over a "right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be
recognised under domestic law. The "dispute" must be genuine and
serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but
also to its scope and the manner of its exercise. The outcome of the
proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question (see,
as one of the most recent references, Eur. Court HR, Balmer-Schafroth
and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 26 August 1997, Reports 1997-IV,
No. 43, para. 32, with further references). Furthermore, the right in
question must be "civil" in its character (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur.
Court HR, Skärby v. Sweden judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 180-
B, p. 37, para. 29).
The Commission notes that in the present case the applicant was
struck out of the list of persons looking for work, as from
6 January 1995, at a request to this effect which he had signed on
5 January 1995. In the proceedings complained of the applicant did not
contest this decision as such. In fact, the applicant challenged the
administrative authorities' finding that he no longer wished to co-
operate with them. He claimed that the decision in question should
only have stated that he was objectively prevented from co-operating
with the labour authorities as he had to look after his parents. He
also claimed that he should have been struck out of the list in
question with effect from 15 December 1994 when he had requested for
the first time that his co-operation with the labour authorities be
temporarily interrupted.
Thus, before the Bratislava City Court the applicant challenged
only formal aspects of the decision in question. The Commission notes
that the subject-matter of the applicant's action was not "pecuniary"
in nature (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Éditions Périscope
v. France judgment of 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-B, p. 66,
para. 40). The Commission also notes that at no stage in the
proceedings had the applicant claimed to have suffered any loss for
which he intended to seek compensation. Furthermore, the Commission
has before it no information that would indicate that the contested
aspects of the administrative decision in question were directly
decisive for the determination of any of the applicant's "civil
rights".
In these circumstances, the Commission considers that Article 6
para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is not applicable in the present
case.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicant further complains that he was deprived of an
effective remedy before a national authority and that the way in which
the Bratislava City Court dealt with his case was discriminatory. He
alleges a violation of Articles 13 and 14 (Art. 13, 14) of the
Convention.
In view of its above finding that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention does not apply in the present case, the Commission reaches
the same conclusion with respect to Articles 13 and 14 (Art. 13, 14)
of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Pierre-Bloch
v. France judgment of 21 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI, No. 53, para.
64; Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p.
17, para. 36).
It follows that this part of the application is also incompatible
ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER J.-C. GEUS
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy