FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 65640/01
by Mojmír ROTREKL
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 June 2002 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrsE. Palm,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 December 2000 and registered on 5 February 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mojmír Rotrekl, is a Czech national born in 1922 and living in Dřevnovice, Czech Republic. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 April 1991 the applicant claimed compensation from a person who had damaged his car.
On 3 February 1994 the Košice - okolie District Court allowed the applicant’s claims in part. On 6 December 1995 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment.
On 3 July 1997 the District Court appointed an expert.
On 27 April 1999 the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings to the Ministry of Justice.
On 17 November 1999 the Košice - okolie District Court noted that the applicant had withdrawn a part of his action and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the relevant claims. It further dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s action. The District Court held, with reference to an expert opinion, that the costs of the repair which had been paid by an insurance company, exceeded the damage caused by the defendant. The court also found that the applicant had not substantiated his claims that he had incurred additional expenses following the accident.
On 3 January 2000 the applicant appealed against the decision to dismiss his action. He argued that the expert opinion on which the relevant part of the first instance judgment was based was erroneous. He also challenged the District Court’s decision on the expert’s fees.
On 13 March 2000 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice that the length of the proceedings was excessive.
On 23 May 2000 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision to dismiss the applicant’s action. The appellate court found that the District Court had established the facts correctly and decided in accordance with the law. The Regional Court held that the applicant’s objections concerning the expert opinion were unsubstantiated. The judgment was served on 19 June 2000.
On 27 June 2000 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. The Supreme Court rejected it, on 28 September 2000, as being inadmissible.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to apply the domestic law correctly and decided arbitrarily and that the length of the proceedings was excessive.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a hearing within a reasonable time was violated in the proceedings concerning his claim.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint 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 applicant further alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the courts failed to apply the domestic law correctly and decided arbitrarily.
The Court recalls that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see the García Ruiz v. Spain judgment of 21 January 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-I, pp. 98-99, § 28).
The Court notes that the domestic courts duly examined the applicant’s claims and finds that their decisions are not arbitrary. Furthermore, there is no indication that the proceedings leading to these decisions were unfair.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy