SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 39752/98
by Helena MATOUŠKOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 2 December 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrC. Rozakis, President,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 10 September 1997 by Helena Matoušková against Slovakia and registered on 9 February 1998 under file no. 39752/98;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Slovak national, born in 1940 and living in Bratislava.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 November 1994 the applicant sued a co-operative before the Bratislava II District Court (Obvodný súd). She claimed the payment of a sum to which she was entitled after she had withdrawn from the co-operative.
On 26 June 1995 the District Court transferred the case to the Bratislava City Court (Mestský súd).
On 12 September 1996 the applicant complained about delays in the proceedings to the president of the City Court. On 24 September 1996 the latter informed the applicant that the proceedings had been stayed on 18 September 1996 and that the relevant decision would be served later.
In its decision of 18 September 1996 the Bratislava City Court noted that the decision on the applicant’s action depended on the assessment of the property of the co-operative concerned and that this issue was the subject-matter of a different set of proceedings pending before it. The City Court therefore stayed the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim pending the outcome of the other set of proceedings. The applicant appealed.
On 12 December 1996 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice that her case was not proceeded with.
On 27 January 1997 the Ministry of Justice admitted that the applicant’s complaint about delays in the proceedings was justified.
On 29 January 1997 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the City Court’s decision of 18 September 1996.
On 24 March 1997 the applicant lodged a petition with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). She alleged, in substance, a violation of her right to a fair hearing and that the proceedings concerning her case lasted unreasonably long.
On 11 June 1997 the Constitutional Court declared admissible the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings and rejected the remainder of her petition. In its decision the Constitutional Court noted, inter alia, that it lacked jurisdiction to interfere with proceedings before the general courts and to decide on issues falling under the jurisdiction of the latter.
The Constitutional Court has not yet decided on the merits of the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that her right to a fair hearing by an independent tribunal was not respected and that the proceedings concerning her case have lasted unreasonably long. She alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains that her right to a fair hearing by an independent tribunal was not respected in the proceedings concerning her action against a co-operative.
The Court notes that the proceedings complained of were stayed pending the outcome of a different set of proceedings. Accordingly, the applicant’s above complaints are premature.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
2.The applicant further complains that her right to a hearing “within a reasonable time” guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was not respected.
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.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings.
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy