AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 21029/92
by Vilibald Rudolf MATTER
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 21 April 1992 by
Vilibald Rudolf Matter against Czechoslovakia and registered on
3 December 1992 under file No. 21029/92;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
21029/92 - 2 -
The applicant, a citizen of the CSFR born in 1925, is a pensioner
residing at Cadca.
Insofar as it can be determined from the applicant's submissions,
in 1976 his capacity to act (spôsobilost k právnym úkonom) was limited,
and in 1983 his incapacity was declared by the Cadca District Court
(Okresny súd).
On 30 May 1990 the Slovak Supreme Court (Najvyssí súd Slovenskej
republiky) annulled the decision of the Cadca District Court and
referred the case back for a new decision. Proceedings were resumed
and are apparently still pending before the Cadca District Court.
On 3 December 1991 the applicant filed a complaint about the
decision of 1983 with the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) which
declared the appeal inadmissible on 28 May 1992 as the proceedings
before the Cadca District Court had not yet been concluded and the
applicant had not exhausted all the remedies at his disposal.
The applicant complains, without reference to any particular
provisions of the Convention, of the withdrawal of his capacity to act.
He also complains of the unfairness of the various proceedings.
The Commission has examined the applicant's separate complaints
as they have been submitted by him. However, after considering these
complaints as a whole, and insofar as these complaints are within the
Commission's competence and the applicant has complied with the
requirement under Article 26 of the Convention as to the exhaustion of
domestic remedies, the Commission finds that they do not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission by a majority
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy