AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 31088/96
by Dagmar RYBÁKOVÁ
against the Slovak Republic
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 4 September 1996, 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
L. LOUCAIDES
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
M. VILA AMIGÓ
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 22 December 1995
by Ms. Dagmar Rybáková against the Slovak Republic and registered on
22 April 1996 under file No. 31088/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Czech citizen born in 1946. She is an
official and resides in Prague. The facts of the case, as submitted
by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. The particular circumstances of the case
In 1972 the applicant and three other persons were obliged to
sell a house in Bratislava to the Slovak Institute for the Preservation
of Monuments and the Protection of Nature (Slovensky ústav pamiatkovej
starostlivosti a ochrany prírody). By a letter of 19 November 1990 the
applicant claimed its restitution from the Ministry of Culture. She
pointed out that the house was owned by the Foreign Relations Centre
(Stredisko zahranicnych stykov) of the Ministry of Culture and inquired
how the claim should be lodged. On 30 November 1990 the Ministry of
Culture informed her that she should contact directly the Foreign
Relations Centre.
On 18 January 1991 the Foreign Relations Centre confirmed that
it possessed the house at issue. It informed the applicant about
prerequisite conditions for restitution of property pursuant to Act No.
403/1990, as amended. The applicant was requested to specify, with a
view to verifying whether her claim fell under Act No. 403/1990, the
legal title under which her house had been acquired by the State. On
18 January 1991 and on 20 April 1991 the applicant requested the
Bratislava District Office (Okresny úrad) to submit the aforesaid
information to her.
On 1 April 1991 the Foreign Relations Centre merged with the
Administration of Cultural Establishments (Správa kultúrnych zariadení)
of the Ministry of Culture. The latter became the owner of the
Centre's property including the house claimed by the applicant.
The Bratislava District Office replied to the applicant on
5 February and on 28 June 1991. At the latter date she was informed
that "since 1 January 1980 the house had been administered by the
Administration of Cultural Establishments (the Foreign Relations
Centre) of the Ministry of Culture" which had acquired it from the
Slovak Institute for the Preservation of Monuments and the Protection
of Nature. The applicant was further advised that information as to
how the aforesaid institute had acquired the house was still not
available.
The District Office also held that in any event the applicant's
claim did not fall under Act No. 403/1990, as amended. The applicant
was informed that the District Office was not a person liable to
restore the house pursuant to Act No. 87/1991 ("the Act" - see "The
relevant domestic law" below), and that "after receipt of a negative
reply" from the institute mentioned above the District Office would
transfer her claim to the Ministry of Culture.
The District Office transmitted the documents concerning the
applicant's claim to the Ministry of Culture on 16 September 1991. The
Ministry sent the file to the Administration of Cultural Establishments
on 26 September 1991. The Ministry's letter with the file was
delivered to the Administration of Cultural Establishments on
2 October 1991.
On 12 December 1991 the Administration of Cultural Establishments
informed the applicant and two other claimants that their claim did not
fall under the Act.
The applicant brought her claim before the Bratislava I District
Court (Obvodny súd). She claimed that she met the requirements of
Section 6 para. 1 (g) of the Act.
The District Court dismissed the applicant's claim on 23 June
1994. It found that pursuant to Section 5 para. 2 of the Act the
applicant had been under an obligation to claim the restitution of her
house in writing within six months from the entry into force of the
Act, i.e. between 1 April and 1 October 1991. The District Court
further established that the person liable to restore the house within
the meaning of Section 4 para. 1 of the Act was the Administration of
Cultural Establishments. However, the applicant had failed to lodge
her claim to the latter within the time-limit laid down in the Act.
As to the claim which had been transmitted to the Administration
of Cultural Establishments through the intermediary of the Bratislava
District Office and the Ministry of Culture, the District Court found
that it had been delivered on 2 October 1991, i.e. after the expiry of
the extinctive time-limit laid down in Section 5 para. 2 of the Act.
The District Court further held that the applicant did not qualify for
restitution of the house pursuant to Section 6 para. 1 (g) of the Act.
The applicant appealed. She alleged, inter alia, that she had
met the formal requirements of the Act as her claim had been
transmitted to the Ministry of Culture in time, and that she was
entitled to have the house restored pursuant to Section 6 para. 1 (g)
of the Act. On 20 October 1994 the Bratislava City Court (Mestsky súd)
upheld the first instance decision. It found that the applicant had
lodged her claim out of time and considered it, therefore, irrelevant
whether she met the requirements laid down in Section 6 para. 1 (g) of
the Act. The judgment stated that the applicant was entitled to
challenge it by means of an appeal on points of law (dovolanie).
On 23 June 1995 the Supreme Court (Najvyssí súd) dismissed the
applicant's appeal on points of law. It recalled that in accordance
with Section 5 para. 2 of the Act claims for restitution of property
had had to be lodged with the persons mentioned in Section 4 of the Act
from 1 April to 1 October 1991, and that any claim delivered after the
latter date was barred.
The Supreme Court held that in the applicant's case the legal
persons within the meaning of Section 4 para. 1 of the Act (i.e. from
which the applicant was entitled to claim the restitution) were both
the Foreign Relations Centre and the Administration of Cultural
Establishments of the Ministry of Culture as they had merged on the
same day when the Act had entered into force. It found that on
30 November 1990 the applicant had been informed by the Ministry of
Culture that the house at issue was possessed by the Foreign Relations
Centre, and that on 18 January 1991 the latter had confirmed this
information to her. The Supreme Court therefore did not accept the
applicant's argument that it had been impossible for her to find out
by whom the house had been owned during the relevant period.
In the Supreme Court's view, it was irrelevant that the
applicant's claim had been transmitted to the Ministry of Culture
within the time-limit set by Section 5 para. 2 of the Act since the
Ministry was a distinct legal person and had not possessed the house
at issue. The claims which the applicant had lodged prior to the
enactment and entry into force of the Act could not be taken into
consideration under the Act, either. The Supreme Court concluded that
the applicant's right to claim the restitution had lapsed, and
considered it irrelevant whether or not she met the requirements laid
down in Section 6 para. 1 (g) of the Act.
In the proceedings before the Slovak courts the applicant was
represented by a lawyer.
B. The relevant domestic law
Act No. 87/1991 on Extrajudicial Rehabilitation (Zákon o
mimosúdnych rehabilitáciách) was adopted on 21 February 1991 and
entered into force on 1 April 1991.
Pursuant to Section 4 para. 1 of the Act the State or legal
persons which possessed the property covered by the Act on 1 April 1991
were liable to restore it.
In accordance with Section 5 para. 2 of the Act claims for
restitution were to be lodged with the persons liable to restore the
property within six months from the Act's entry into force. Any claims
lodged after the expiry of the aforesaid time-limit were barred.
Section 6 para. 1 (g) of the Act provided for restitution of
property purchased by the State if the vendor had been obliged to
conclude the contract under conditions that were manifestly
disadvantageous.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that
the courts' decision to dismiss her claim is arbitrary. In particular,
she complains that the courts did not take into account that it was
impossible for her to find out, within the six months' time-limit set
for lodging her claim, by whom the house was owned.
She further alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
in that she had been forced to sell her house against her will, and
that the Slovak authorities refused to restore it to her.
Finally, the applicant complains that she was discriminated
against on the ground of her nationality. She alleges a violation of
Article 14 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that the courts decided arbitrarily. In
particular, she alleges that they did not take into consideration that
it was impossible for her to find out by whom the house was owned
during the relevant period. She alleges a violation of Article 6
(Art. 6) of the Convention which provides, so far as relevant, as
follows:
"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
The Commission recalls that it is not called upon to decide
whether or not the domestic courts have correctly assessed the evidence
before them or to deal with an application alleging that errors of law
or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it
considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of
any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (cf., mutatis
mutandis, No. 21283/93, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R. 77-A pp. 81, 88, with further
references). The Commission cannot review, in principle, the
interpretation and application of national law (cf. No. 10153/82, Dec.
13.10.86, D.R. 49 p. 67).
In the present case the applicant's claim was dealt with by
courts at three levels. The applicant was represented by a lawyer.
The courts examined the complaints raised by the applicant and found,
for reasons expressly stated in their judgments, that she had lodged
her claim out of time. The Bratislava City Court and the Supreme Court
considered it, therefore, irrelevant whether the applicant met the
requirements of Section 6 para. 1 (g) of the Act.
In particular, the Supreme Court held that the applicant could
have lodged her claim either with the Administration of Cultural
Establishments or with the Foreign Relations Centre of the Ministry of
Culture. It found that on 30 November 1990 the applicant had been
informed by the Ministry of Culture that the house at issue was
possessed by the Foreign Relations Centre, and that on 18 January 1991
the latter had confirmed this information to her. The Supreme Court
therefore did not accept the applicant's argument that it had been
impossible for her to find out by whom the house had been owned during
the relevant period. In the Commission's view this decision is not
arbitrary.
In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the
proceedings concerning the applicant's case were not in breach of the
requirements laid down in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention.
If follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
2. The applicant further alleges a violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) which provides, so far as relevant, as follows:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his
possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law."
a) To the extent that the applicant complains that she was forced
to sell her house against her will, the Commission recalls that the
Convention only governs, for each Contracting Party, facts subsequent
to its entry into force with respect to that Party.
However, in the present case the alleged interference occurred
in 1972, i.e. at a period prior to both 18 March 1992 which is the date
of ratification of the Convention by the former Czech and Slovak
Federal Republic, and 1 January 1993 which is the date of the entry
into force of the Convention with respect to the Slovak Republic.
The Commission further recalls its constant case-law according
to which deprivation of ownership or another right in rem is in
principle an instantaneous act and does not produce a continuing
situation of "deprivation of right" (cf. No. 7742/76, Dec. 4.7.78, D.R.
14 p. 146; No. 23131/93, Brezny v. the Slovak Republic, Dec. 4.3.96,
to be published in D.R. 85-A).
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
b) The applicant also complains about the refusal to restore her
property.
The Commission does not consider it necessary to examine whether
the applicant's claim amounted to a possession within the meaning of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) since this part of the application
is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.
Pursuant to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention the Commission
may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been
exhausted. In order to exhaust domestic remedies, the person concerned
must pursue those remedies which are available under national law, as
interpreted and applied by the competent authorities (cf., mutatis
mutandis, No. 9022/80, Dec. 13.7.83, D.R. 33 p. 21).
In the present case the courts found that the applicant had
lodged her claim out of time. For this reason the Bratislava City
Court and the Supreme Court did not consider it necessary to examine
its merits. The Commission has found above that this decision is not
arbitrary.
Thus, the applicant has failed to lodge her claim in accordance
with the requirements laid down in Slovak law. She has not, therefore,
complied with the requirement as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies
laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application has to be rejected
pursuant to Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
3. Finally, the applicant complains that she was discriminated
against because of her nationality. She alleges a violation of Article
14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.
The Commission finds, insofar as the matter complained of has
been substantiated and is within its competence, that in the present
case there is no appearance of discrimination contrary to Article 14
(Art. 14) of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy