FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 62171/00
by Milan LANCZ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 June 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 on 29 August 2000 and registered on 25 October 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Milan Lancz, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1928 and lives in Bratislava.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 September 1989 the applicant claimed compensation for a technological improvement which he had suggested to his employer.
On 20 February 1990 the Bratislava 1 District Court dismissed the action. On 26 April 1990 the Bratislava City Court quashed this decision and instructed the first instance court to establish the relevant facts of the case.
An expert appointed on 17 July 1991 submitted his opinion on 5 November 1991.
On 9 June 2000 the Bratislava 1 District Court delivered a new judgment by which it dismissed the applicant’s claim. The District Court found, with reference to comprehensive documentary evidence which comprised two expert opinions and also with reference to statements of several witnesses, that the applicant’s suggestion concerning the exchange of the lift in a spa house had been made in the context of his working duties within the company concerned. Furthermore, it did not meet the statutory requirement that it should resolve in a new and specific manner a technological or organisational problem of the defendant company. The applicant appealed. He claimed that the second expert opinion was erroneous.
On 24 April 2001 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment of 9 June 2000 on the ground that the letter court had established the relevant facts correctly and that it had decided in accordance with the relevant law.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the dismissal of his action was arbitrary and that the proceedings lasted an unreasonably long time.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a hearing within a reasonable time was violated in the proceedings concerning his claim for compensation.
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.
2. The applicant further alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the dismissal of his action was arbitrary.
The Court recalls that, 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 the García Ruiz v. Spain judgment of 21 January 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-I, pp. 98-99, § 28).
The Court notes that the domestic courts duly examined the applicant’s claim and finds that their decisions are not arbitrary. Furthermore, there is no indication that the proceedings leading to these decisions were unfair.
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 applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings concerning his claim for compensation;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy