AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 21026/92
by Ján MACOSKO
against Czechoslovakia
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
10 December 1992, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 11 May 1992 by Ján
Macosko against Czechoslovakia and registered on 3 December 1992 under
file No. 21026/92;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
The applicant, a citizen of the CSFR born in 1946, is a pensioner
residing at Kosice.
In 1975 the applicant, who was then employed in steel works,
participated in a football match organised by a trade union. During
the match the applicant was injured. He became an invalid and received
certain daily allowances and an invalidity pension. He attempted to
obtain compensation for the injury on the ground that it had
constituted an industrial accident, but on 22 June 1979 the Public
Prosecutor of the Slovak Republic dismissed this request.
In 1991 the applicant discovered a document of the proceedings
terminated on 22 June 1979 which he believed had been falsified. His
attempt to introduce criminal proceedings in particular against the
judge concerned was refused on 18 February 1992 by the Public
Prosecutor. The applicant then filed a request for the reopening of
the previous proceedings with the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud).
The Court dismissed the applicant's request on 2 July 1992.
The applicant complains of the unfairness of the proceedings
before the Public Prosecutor and the Constitutional Court. He also
complains that the funds he has received do not permit him to found a
family. Finally he alleges that he cannot effectively complain about
the refusal of compensation. The applicant does not invoke any
provisions of the Convention.
The Commission has examined these complaints under Articles 6,
12 and 13 of the Convention, respectively.
Insofar as the applicant complains under Article 6 of the
Convention of the unfairness of the proceedings before the
Constitutional Court, and under Article 13 of the Convention that he
did not have an effective remedy at his disposal, the Commission
considers that these proceedings concerned either the introduction of
criminal proceedings against third persons or the reopening of previous
proceedings. However, such proceedings do not involve the
determination of a civil right or a criminal charge within the meaning
of Article 6 of the Convention (see No. 7761/77, Dec. 8.5.78, D.R. 14
p. 171). The Convention not guaranteeing a right to introduce criminal
proceedings against third persons or the reopening of proceedings,
Article 13 of the Convention is also not applicable. In this respect
the application must be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae
with the provisions of the Convention in application of Article 27
para. 2 of the Convention.
Insofar as the applicant complains under Article 12 of the
Convention that he could not found a family for lack of funds, and even
assuming that the applicant has complied with the requirements under
Article 26 of the Convention as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies,
the Commission finds that no issue arises under this provision. It
follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. Krüger) (C.A. Nørgaard)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy