THIRD SECTION
Application no. 25337/10
Štefan PODHAJECKÝ
against Slovakia
lodged on 13 April 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Štefan Podhajecký, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Čierna nad Tisou. He is represented before the Court by Ms M. Podhajecká, his legal guardian.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is disabled due to a lasting mental disorder. He has received an invalidity pension.
On 27 July 2007 the Trebišov District Court restricted the applicant’s legal capacity by preventing him from using his property and carrying out financial transactions to the extent that the sum at stake exceeded the equivalent of 17 euros (EUR). It further decided that the applicant was not allowed to act on his own in administrative and judicial proceedings or before other public authorities in matters the value of the subject-matter of which exceeded the above sum. The court appointed Ms M. Podhajecká, who is the applicant’s sister and lives in Košice, as the applicant’s legal guardian. It decided that it was not appropriate to serve the decision on the applicant in person.
On 17 August 2007 a document officially confirming the appointment of Ms M. Podhajecká was drawn by the judge.
On 13 November 2007 the Social Security Administration informed the applicant that his invalidity pension would be reduced with a view to enforcing a decision which a private arbitration court had given against him. The overall sum to be enforced corresponded to EUR 1,578.
The applicant, through his guardian, sued the creditor before the Trebišov District Court. He explained that the guardian received no reply to the request for the arbitration court judgment to be served on her, and that he had not been notified of the enforcement proceedings. The applicant stated that he had no knowledge of the loan contract in issue. In any event, such contract was to be considered void in view of his state of health. The applicant claimed that the arbitration court judgment should be quashed. He requested that he should be exempted from the obligation to pay court fee. The action explained that Ms M. Podhajecká was authorised and obliged to act on the applicant’s behalf to the extent that his legal capacity had been restricted.
On 11 March 2008 the Trebišov District Court informed the applicant that the case had been transferred to the Nitra District Court for reasons of jurisdiction.
On 13 October 2009 the applicant’s guardian complained about delays in the proceedings.
On 3 November 2009 the acting President of the Nitra District Court informed the guardian that the applicant had been asked, on 15 April 2008, to state further details of his action in accordance with the statutory requirements within ten days. The request had been served on the applicant on 2 June 2008. As he had failed to comply, the Nitra District Court rejected the claim on 10 July 2008. The decision became final on 4 August 2008.
On 18 November 2009 the applicant, represented by his legal guardian, lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. He alleged a breach of his right of access to a court and to a fair hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that, among other things, the Nitra District Court had disregarded the relevant statutory provisions which required that any submission was to be addressed to his legal guardian and that the District Court should have advised him of the possibility of having a lawyer appointed to represent him in the proceedings.
On 16 December 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as having been filed outside the statutory time-limit of two months. It held that that time-limit had started running on 4 August 2008 when the Nitra District Court’s decision of 10 July 2008 had become final.
B. Relevant domestic law
Section 53(3) of the Constitutional Court Act 1993 provides that a complaint to the Constitutional Court can be lodged within two months of the date on which the decision in question has become final and binding or on which a measure has been notified or notice of other interference with the complainant’s interests has been given. As regards measures and other types of interference, this period commences when the plaintiff has a practical possibility of becoming aware of them.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair hearing by a tribunal was breached in the proceedings leading to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 16 December 2009.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing by a tribunal in the proceedings concerning his civil action and leading to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 16 December 2009, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy