FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 48674/99
by Cecília KANDRÁČOVÁ and Others
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 July 2002 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrsE. Palm,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 12 October 1998,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, whose names appear in the appendix, are siblings. They are Slovakian nationals.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 24 February 1992 the applicants lodged an action for restitution of property under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act of 1991 with the Bratislava - vidiek District Court. They claimed that real property which formed a part of their late parents’ estate and which was possessed by two individuals should be restored to them. The applicants claimed that one of the defendants had acquired the property in question unlawfully in 1963.
On 25 June 1993 and on 27 September 1993 the applicants submitted further evidence in support of their action.
On 14 March 1994 the applicants complained about delays in the proceedings to the president of the Bratislava - vidiek District Court. On 16 May 1994 they sent a similar complaint to the Minister of Justice. On 31 May 1994 the president of the Bratislava - vidiek District Court informed the applicants that the judge dealing with the case had a heavy workload.
On 24 March 1995 the applicants requested the District Court to hear several witnesses. They drew the court’s attention to the fact that the witnesses were aged and that several of the witnesses whom they had proposed to hear earlier had died.
On 5 October 1995 the Bratislava -vidiek District Court dismissed the applicants’ action. The District Court heard the parties and eight witnesses and had regard to the documentary evidence available. It found, inter alia, that the applicants had failed to show that their legal predecessors had formally owned the property in question. The decision further stated that it had not been established that the defendants had acquired the property from the State contrary to the rules then in force which was a prerequisite, under Section 4(2) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act, for granting their claim.
On 12 January 1995 the applicants appealed. They claimed that the State Notary’s decisions which were included in the file clearly indicated that their parents had become owners of the property. The applicants maintained that the State authorities had prevented their parents from using the property, despite the fact that the latter had paid fees in its respect, in that various institutions and tenants had been placed in the premises in question. Furthermore, one of the defendants obtained the property unlawfully in 1963. The applicants also complained about the length of the proceedings and pointed to the fact that the case had been dealt with by three different judges.
On 12 September 1996 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment. In its decision the appellate court found that the evidence available indicated that the property in question had never been formally transferred to the State and that the titles to it had been transferred, throughout the relevant period, among the members of the same family either by means of succession or by donation inter vivos. The Regional Court therefore concluded that the requirements for restitution of property set out in Sections 3(1) and 4(2) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act were not met. The fact that, at a certain time, the public authorities had imposed restrictions as regards the use of the property could not affect the position.
The applicants filed an appeal on points of law on 8 July 1997. They alleged that the lower courts had disregarded their request to consider also facts relating to their claim for restitution of another part of the property in question which had been transferred to a co-operative and the restitution of which they claimed in a different set of proceedings. They also alleged that the appellate court had disregarded the relevant facts and that its decision was arbitrary.
On 26 February 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law. The decision stated that it was for the respective courts to determine what evidence they considered necessary to take. The Supreme Court found that there were no shortcomings in the proceedings which would justify quashing the second instance judgment.
B. Relevant domestic law
The following provisions of the Extrajudicial-Rehabilitations Act of 1991 (Zákon o mimosúdnych rehabilitáciách), as amended, are relevant in the present case:
Section 3(1) provides, inter alia, that any natural person who is a citizen of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic permanently resident within its territory is entitled to claim restitution of any of his or her property which passed into State ownership in the circumstances referred to in Section 6 during the period from 25 February 1948 to 1 January 1990. Paragraph 2 (c) of Section 3 gives the right to claim restitution also to the children and grandchildren of such persons.
Section 4(1) provides that the State or any legal person having such a property in its possession at the date on which the Act comes into force shall be obliged to restore it to the persons entitled to claim its restitution. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Section 4, such an obligation extends also to any natural person who unlawfully acquired the property from the State as well as to other persons to whom it may have been subsequently transferred.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts failed to establish the relevant facts of their case and decided arbitrarily and that the length of the proceedings was excessive.
2. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicants complain that they have not been able to use their parents’ property as a result of the dismissal of their action.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain that that the courts failed to establish the relevant facts of their case and decided arbitrarily, and that the length of the proceedings was excessive. They allege a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the relevant part of which provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
a) To the extent that the applicants complain about the length of the proceedings, 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.
b) As regards the applicants’ complaint that their right to a fair hearing was violated in that the courts failed to establish the relevant facts of their case and decided arbitrarily, the Court recalls according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see, among other authorities, Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
In the present case the Bratislava - vidiek District Court and the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ claim on the ground that the property in question had never been formally transferred to the State and that the titles to it had been transferred, throughout the relevant period, only among the members of the same family either by means of succession or by donation inter vivos. The Regional Court therefore concluded that the requirements for restitution of property set out in Sections 3(1) and 4(2) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act were not met. Subsequently the Supreme Court found no shortcomings in the proceedings at lower instances.
In the Court’s view, the domestic courts gave sufficient and relevant reasons for their judgments. Furthermore, there is no appearance of unfairness or arbitrariness in the proceedings in question which would infringe the guarantees of a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicants complain that they have not been able to use their parents’ property as a result of the dismissal of their action for its restitution. They allege a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which provides:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
In the present case the applicants claimed restitution of real property from two individuals as they considered that one of them had acquired it unlawfully in 1963.
The Court notes that the transfer of the property to one of the defendants which the applicants contest took place in 1963. Since the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, to which the Slovak Republic is one of the successor States, ratified the Convention and recognised the right of individual application on 18 March 1992, the Court lacks temporal jurisdiction to examine the circumstances of that transfer.
As to the decisions which were delivered on the applicants’ claim after 18 March 1992, the domestic courts held that the applicants lacked standing to make such a claim as the property had never been formally transferred to the State which was a prerequisite, in accordance with Sections 3(1) and 4 of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act, for their action to be successful. Therefore the defendants were not liable to restore the property to the applicants.
Referring to its above finding under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that the interpretations of the relevant facts of the case by the domestic courts cannot be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.
Accordingly, the facts of the case do not disclose any appearance of an interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint about the length of the proceedings;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
A P P E N D I X
LIST OF THE APPLICANTS
1. Ms Cecília Kandráčová, who was born in 1943, resides in Bratislava;
2. Mr Vladimír Burdan, who was born in 1954, resides in Bratislava;
3. Ms Terézia Sabová, who was born in 1945, resides in Bratislava;
4. Ms Katarína Ludvigová, who was born in 1952, resides in Bratislava;
5. Mr František Burdan, who was born in 1952, resides in Bratislava.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy