SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION[Note1]
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 41783/98
by František POLOVKA
against Slovakia[Note2]
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 11 January 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Fischbach, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
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 9 April 1998 by František Polovka against Slovakia and registered on 19 June 1998 under file no. 41783/98;
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 1953 and living in Svit. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Macko, a lawyer practising in Poprad.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 February 1993 the applicant was informed that his contract of employment would be terminated as from 30 April 1993 on the ground that he had neglected his duties.
On 19 March 1993 the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal and claimed compensation before the Poprad District Court (Okresný súd).
In the course of 1993 the District Court held several hearings. The applicant submits that subsequently the District Court did not proceed with the case despite his complaints. In the applicant’s view, the District Court waited for the outcome of criminal proceedings which had been brought against him.
On 17 April 1996 the Poprad District Court dismissed the action. It did not grant the applicant’s request to take further evidence and to hear a witness. In its judgment the District Court noted, inter alia, that in a separate set of proceedings it had convicted the applicant of attempted theft on 9 December 1993, that the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) upheld this decision on 22 February 1994 and that the Minister of Justice had refused to lodge a complaint in the interest of the law on the applicant’s behalf in 1995. The District Court found that the applicant had been dismissed in accordance with the law and considered irrelevant that he had been dismissed prior to the determination of the criminal charge against him.
The applicant appealed. He alleged that the first instance court had not established all relevant facts of his case.
On 14 October 1997 the applicant was summoned to appear at a hearing before the Košice Regional Court scheduled for 31 October 1997.
On 31 October 1997 the applicant and his lawyer were informed that the hearing had been held and that a judgment had been delivered in the absence of the parties on 21 October 1997.
On 29 January 1998 the applicant complained to the president of the Košice Regional Court that the proceedings lasted unreasonably long and that he had not been heard by the appellate court.
The Regional Court’s judgment of 21 October 1997 was served on 2 February 1998.
On 11 February 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd). He invoked, inter alia, Section 237 (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that an appeal on points of law is available when a court prevented a party to the proceedings from acting before it.
On 18 February 1998 a judge of the Supreme Court acknowledged the receipt of the appeal on points of law to the applicant’s lawyer.
On 17 August 1998 and on 25 October 1999 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court that his case was not proceeded with.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning his case have lasted unreasonably long. He further complains that the proceedings have not been fair and that he has no effective remedy at his disposal in this respect. He alleges a violation of Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (c), (d) and of Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW[Note3]
1.The applicant complains that the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of his dismissal have lasted unreasonably long. He alleges a violation of Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint. 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 applicant further complains that the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of his dismissal have not been fair and that he has no effective remedy on that issue. He alleges a violation of Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (c) and, (d) as well as of Article 13 of the Convention.
The Court notes that the proceedings complained of are still pending before the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the applicant’s complaints about their unfairness and about the absence of an effective remedy in this respect 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.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Erik FriberghMarc Fischbach Registrar President
[Note1]Do not forget to block text with Alt+B in order to avoid that the information in the highlighted zones disappears.
[Note2]First letter in capital letters plus the article according to normal speech.
[Note3]In your reasoning specify: Complaint / Article of the Convention [/ Succinct summary of Government’s submissions / Succinct summary of applicant’s submissions in communicated case] / Court’s [Commission’s] case-law, if any / Application of case-law to facts of particular case or considerations for specific facts of case.
Remember to use automatic paragraph numbering (Alt+N) followed by a tab.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy