AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 21027/92
by Zdenek RICHTER
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 15 July 1991 by
Zdenek Richter against Czechoslovakia and registered on 3 December 1992
under file No. 21027/92;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
21027/92 - 2 -
The applicant, a citizen of the CSFR born in 1931, is a pensioner
residing at Cesky Tesín.
In 1974 while at a clinic, it was discovered that the applicant
suffered from diabetes. However, the applicant was not apparently
afforded adequate medical treatment. The applicant's state of health
deteriorated and in 1981 he started receiving an invalidity pension.
In 1984 the applicant unsuccessfully applied to the Ostrava
District Court (Okresní soud) for compensation. His appeal was
dismissed by the Ostrava Regional Court (Krajsky soud) on 16 June 1989.
The applicant's further complaint of insufficient medical treatment and
compensation was dismissed by the Ostrava Regional Court on 26 June
1990.
On 18 February 1992 the applicant filed appeals against these
decisions with the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud). On 17 June
1992 the Court rejected the appeals on the ground that he had not filed
them in time. According to Section 55 para. 3 of the Constitutional
Court Procedure Act (Zákon o organizaci Ústavního soudu) an appeal must
be filed within 60 days after the decision of the previous instance
enters into force.
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the
unfairness and the undue length of the proceedings before the various
courts. The applicant also raises complaints under Articles 2, 3, 4,
8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.
The Commission has examined the applicant's separate complaints
as they have been submitted by him. However, after considering these
complaints as a whole, 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 unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. Krüger) (C.A. Nørgaard)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy