SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 40221/98
by Pavol OMASTA
against the Slovak Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 31 August 2000 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrB. Conforti,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrE. Levits, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 9 December 1997 and registered on 12 March 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 applicant is a Slovak national, born in 1942 and living in Batizovce.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
Proceedings concerning the dissolution of joint ownership
In 1980 the applicant’s relatives brought proceedings claiming the distribution of real property which they jointly owned with the applicant.
On 15 May 1987 the Poprad District Court (Okresný súd) granted the claim. On 9 October 1987 the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) upheld the first instance judgment. The decisions became final.
On 25 July 1990 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) quashed, upon a complaint introduced by the General Prosecutor, the relevant parts of the aforesaid judgments. The Supreme Court established that the lower courts had failed to apply the law correctly and that their decisions were erroneous. The case was sent back to the Poprad District Court on 26 September 1990.
On 8 January 1996 the Poprad District Court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed.
On 23 October 1997 the Košice Regional Court quashed the judgment and sent the case back to the District Court.
On 8 June 1999 the Poprad District Court appointed an expert who was to submit an opinion within 90 days. The expert failed to do so. On 10 January 2000 the District Court therefore appointed another expert. As the latter had fallen ill, the Poprad District Court appointed a third expert on 25 February 2000.
Proceedings concerning the enforcement of a debt
On 27 October 1992 the Liptovský Mikuláš District Court granted the applicant’s claim for 210,000 Slovak korunas which he had lent to an individual. The judgment became final on 30 November 1992. The defendant did not return the sum.
On 5 January 1993 the applicant requested the District Court to issue an interim measure ordering the defendant not to alienate his car. On 3 August 1993 the District Court granted the request. It further ordered the applicant to lodge a claim for enforcement of the debt before 15 September 1993.
On 29 December 1994 the Liptovský Mikuláš District Court ordered that a list of the defendant’s property should be established in the context of the enforcement proceedings.
On 13 June 1995 the District Court informed the applicant that the defendant did not own the car anymore. The enforcement proceedings were therefore discontinued.
On 28 March 1996 the applicant claimed the enforcement of the debt by selling the defendant’s real property. On 26 June 1996 the Liptovský Mikuláš District Court asked the applicant to eliminate formal shortcomings in his claim. On 19 August 1996 the applicant complied with the request.
On 5 March 1997 the president of the Liptovský Mikuláš District Court admitted that the court had not proceeded with the applicant’s claim for enforcement for six months. She explained that this was due to the heavy workload.
On 16 April 1997 the District Court ordered the enforcement of the amount due.
On 9 September 1997 the judge appointed an expert with a view to establishing the value of the property in question.
On 24 March 1998 the judge dismissed the opinion submitted by the expert as it had not been prepared in accordance with the court’s instructions.
In the meantime, on 5 March 1998, the Banská Bystrica Regional Court brought bankruptcy proceedings against the defendant at the request of another creditor. The enforcement proceedings brought by the applicant were thereby stayed ex lege pending the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings. Other creditors were invited to register their claims in respect of the defendant within 60 days.
On 2 February 1999 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court asked the applicant to substantiate his claim against the debtor. The applicant complied on 5 Feburary 1999.
On 8 December 1999 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court informed the applicant that his claim had been registered. The letter further stated that the Regional Court had lodged a criminal complaint against the debtor for disrespect of duties imposed in the context of the bankruptcy proceedings. The applicant was informed that the proceedings would be resumed after the examination of the complaint by the public prosecutor.
The applicant’s action concerning the validity of a donation inter vivos
On 24 March 1992 the Poprad District Court dismissed an action concerning the validity of a donation of real property between the applicant’s relatives. On 22 April 1993 the Košice Regional Court upheld this decision. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
On 15 March 1994 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had failed, despite a prior warning, to appoint a lawyer to represent him and to pay the court fees.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an impartial tribunal was not respected in the above proceedings, that his property rights were thereby violated and that he has no effective remedy at his disposal in this respect. He alleges, in substance, a violation of Articles 6 § 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant further invokes Articles 2, 8 and 17 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains that the proceedings were unfair and lasted unreasonably long, and that the judges involved lacked impartiality. He further complains that his property rights were thereby violated and that he has no effective remedy at his disposal in this respect. He alleges, in substance, a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
a)As to the applicant’s complaints about the proceedings concerning the validity of a donation between his relatives, the Court notes that the Supreme Court did not examine the appeal on points of law as the applicant failed to appoint a lawyer and to pay the court fees. In this respect the applicant has not, therefore, exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
b)To the extent that the applicant complains about the proceedings concerning the dissolution of joint ownership in which the final decision was delivered in 1987, the Court recalls that the Convention only governs facts which are subsequent to its entry into force with respect to the Contracting Party concerned. As the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, to which Slovakia is one of the successor States, ratified the Convention and recognised the right of individual petition on 18 March 1992, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain these complaints.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3.
c)The applicant further complains that the proceedings concerning the dissolution of joint ownership which were brought in 1990 and the proceedings concerning the enforcement of a debt were unfair and that the judges involved are biased.
The Court notes that both sets of proceedings are pending. Accordingly, these 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.
d)The applicant complains that the proceedings concerning the dissolution of joint ownership brought in 1990 and the debt enforcement proceedings have lasted unreasonably long, that his property rights were thereby violated and that he has no effective remedy at his disposal in this respect.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints 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 Court has also examined the applicant’s complaints under Articles 2, 8 and 17 of the Convention but finds, to the extent that they have been substantiated and are within its competence, that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaints[Note1] about the length of the pending proceedings concerning the dissolution of joint ownership and the enforcement of a debt, about a violation of the applicant’s property rights and about the absence of an effective remedy in this respect;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
[Note1]Summarise the complaints without necessarily citing the invoked Convention Articles.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy