Application No. 30903/96
by Mária POLÁKOVÁ and Daniela MACHOVÁ
against the Slovak Republic
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 3 December 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs G.H. THUNE, President
MM J.-C. GEUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
A. ARABADJIEV
Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 16 January 1996
by Mária POLÁKOVÁ and Daniela MACHOVÁ against the Slovak Republic and
registered on 1 April 1996 under file No. 30903/96;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the agreement on a friendly settlement of the matter concluded
between the parties on 3 October 1997;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Slovak nationals, born in 1936 and 1957
respectively. The first applicant is the mother of the second
applicant. They reside in Lozorno and Bratislava respectively. Before
the Commission the applicants are represented by Mr. J. Maly, a lawyer
practising in Bratislava.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be
summarised as follows.
In 1973 a plot owned by the first applicant's late husband was
expropriated. In 1992 the applicants claimed its restitution pursuant
to Section 6 para. 1 (m) of the Land Ownership Act. As the Dúbravka
District Office (Miestny úrad) refused to restore the land, the
applicants' claim was examined by the Bratislava Land Office (Pozemkovy
úrad - "the Land Office") pursuant to Section 9 para. 4 of the Land
Ownership Act.
On 12 December 1994, after an examination of the area, the Land
Office granted the applicants' claim. The Land Office found that the
land claimed by the applicants had not been used for housing
construction and that there were only pathways and remainders of old
trees on it. The decision stated that the applicants should be entered
in the land registry as owners of the land at issue.
The Dúbravka District Office lodged an appeal with the Bratislava
City Court (Mestsky súd). The District Office claimed that the plot
was used as a park and that there was a water pipeline underneath a
part of it.
On 8 February 1995 the Bratislava City Court quashed the decision
of the Land Office of 12 December 1994. The court established that the
land at issue had been expropriated in 1973 for the purpose of using
it as part of a building site while constructing blocks of flats in
that area. The court held that a building site had been indispensable
for the construction and considered it irrelevant whether or not the
land served the purpose of its expropriation after the construction had
been accomplished. The court concluded that the applicants' claim did
not fall under Section 6 para. 1 (m) of the Land Ownership Act.
The City Court further held, with reference to Sections 250(f)
and 250(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, that no hearing was
necessary in the case and that its above legal opinion on the case was
binding for the Land Office.
On 22 May 1995 the Land Office dismissed the applicants' claim
with reference to the Bratislava City Court's judgment of 8 February
1995. On 22 June 1995 the applicants lodged an appeal. They submitted
further documentary evidence including statements of witnesses and
claimed that the land had never been a part of the building site. The
applicants expressed their opinion that the City Court had not
established the facts correctly because it had not examined the case
at an oral hearing.
On 26 July 1995 the same chamber of the Bratislava City Court
which had delivered the judgment of 8 February 1995 upheld the Land
Office's decision of 22 May 1995. The City Court reiterated the
reasons for its judgment of 8 February 1995 and concluded that the
applicants were not entitled to claim its restitution under Section
6para. 1 (m) of the Land Ownership Act. With reference to
Section 250(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure the court held that no
hearing was necessary in the applicants' case.
The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme
Court (Najvyssí súd). On 10 October 1995 the Supreme Court
discontinued the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants alleged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention
in that the Bratislava City Court, when deciding on their appeal of
22 June 1995, (i) had not taken into consideration their written
submissions and had failed to establish the facts correctly, (ii) had
not held an oral hearing, and (iii) had lacked impartiality as the same
judges had delivered the judgment of 8 February 1995 in their case.
The applicants further complained under Article 13 of the
Convention that their right to an effective remedy had been violated
in that the same judges had delivered both the judgment of
8 February and the judgment of 26 July 1995.
Finally, the applicants complained about expropriation of their
family's land and about the refusal to restore it. They alleged a
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 16 January 1996 and registered
on 1 April 1996.
On 2 July 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government.
On 3 October 1997 the parties signed an agreement regarding the
terms of a friendly settlement of the case. The agreement provides,
inter alia, as follows:
[Translation]
"... the Government of the Slovak Republic shall provide the
necessary legal conditions for an oral hearing of the applicants'
claim so that all guarantees laid down by Article 6 para. 1 of
the Convention are respected. For this purpose:
a) the applicants shall file a petition with the Bratislava IV
District Office (hereinafter the District Office) for new
proceedings to be brought in their case;
b) the District Office shall re-open the proceedings
concerning the applicants' claim for restitution ...;
c) should the applicants be unsuccessful in the proceedings
before the District Office and should they subsequently seek a
judicial review of the District Office's decision, the Bratislava
Regional Court (formerly the Bratislava City Court) ... shall be
ready to decide on the applicants' action at an oral hearing in
conformity with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention."
In an accompanying letter dated 3 October 1997 the parties
stated that they were aware that in consequence of the above agreement
the Commission may decide to strike the application out of its list of
cases pursuant to Article 30 of the Convention.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
In view of the agreement between the parties of 3 October 1997,
the Commission notes that the matter has been resolved within the
meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention.
The Commission finds no special circumstances regarding respect
for human rights as defined in the Convention which require examination
of the application to be continued, in accordance with
Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy