FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 54809/00
by Ján SABOL and Mária SABOLOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28 January 2003 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 November 1999,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Ján Sabol and Mrs Mária Sabolová are spouses. They are Slovakian nationals, who were born in 1927 and 1939 respectively and live in Košice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 2 November 1987 the applicants claimed before the Košice City Court that the boundary between their plot of land and that of their neighbours had not been determined correctly.
On 15 March 1990 the Košice City Court granted the action with reference to an expert opinion.
On 31 August 1990 the Košice Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment .
Upon the instruction of the City Court the applicants amended their action. They claimed that the defendants should put at their disposal a part of a plot of land and that they should remove a gas connection from that land. The City Court ordered an expert opinion.
On 26 November 1992 the defendants filed a counter-action in which they claimed that they should be granted the right to use the part of the land on which the gas connection was built.
On 29 September 1994 the City Court ordered the defendants to vacate the land in question. It further noted that the gas connection on that land had been built by the Slovak Gas Company in accordance with the relevant regulations. The court considered it appropriate not to order its removal as it was fixed to central gas pipe-line belonging to the Slovak Gas Company. It ordered the defendants to pay compensation to the applicants for the use of the part of their land on which the gas connection was built. The judgment was served on the applicants on 21 December 1994.
On 18 January 1995 the applicants appealed and challenged the first instance decision according to which they had to tolerate the gas connection on their plot. They further requested that the defendants’ counter-action of 26 November 1992 be dismissed.
In February 1996 the Košice Regional Court decided to examine the plots and to obtain another expert opinion. A decision to appoint an expert was issued by the Košice 1 District Court on 22 May 1996. On 8 January 1997 a different expert was asked to submit an opinion.
On 27 February 1997 the Košice Regional Court quashed the relevant part of the District Court’s judgment on the ground that the first instance court had omitted to decide on a part of both the applicants’ and the defendants’ claims. In its judgment the appellate court pointed out, in particular, that the applicants had not shown that the gas connection had not been built in accordance with the relevant regulations. However, in deciding on the applicants’ obligation to tolerate the gas connection on their land and the defendants’ obligation to pay compensation therefor, the District Court had failed to take into account that subterranean gas pipes between the connection and the defendants’ house possibly crossed the applicants’ land.
On 10 November 1997 the Košice 1 District Court appointed an expert with a view to establishing the relevant facts. The expert submitted his opinion on 22 December 1998.
On 9 March 1999 the applicants submitted their comments on the opinion.
On 3 December 1999 the Košice 1 District Court dismissed the applicants’ claim that the gas connection be removed from their land. It further ordered the defendants to pay compensation to the applicants for the use of the relevant part of the land on which the gas connection was built and the surface of which equalled 0.22 square meters.
In its judgment the District Court upheld its earlier finding according to which the gas connection, i.e. a box comprising a gas-meter, a control device and a lock had been built by the Slovak Gas Company in accordance with the relevant regulations. The court considered it appropriate not to order its removal. The court further held, with reference to an expert opinion, that the gas pipes between the gas connection and the defendants’ house did not cross the applicants’ land. The defendants were ordered to pay compensation to the applicants for the piece of land on which the gas connection was built. Its amount was determined in accordance with the relevant regulations. As both the applicants and the defendants were partly successful, the court decided that they should share the costs of the proceedings.
The applicants appealed and claimed that the District Court had failed to establish the relevant facts correctly. They alleged, in particular, that the gas connection had not been built in accordance with the relevant regulations and that the defendants should remove it.
On 10 October 2000 the Košice Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment of 3 December 1999. The judgment stated that all relevant facts had been established at the earlier stage of the proceedings. The appellate court found that the expert opinion according to which the gas pipes did not cross the applicants’ land was reliable. It further dismissed, with reference to evidence taken earlier, the applicants’ argument that the gas connection had not been built in accordance with the relevant regulations.
On 25 September 2001 the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicants that no reasons for filing an extraordinary appeal on points of law on their behalf had been established.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts decided arbitrarily in that their claim for the gas connection to be removed was not granted and that the length of the proceedings was excessive.
THE LAW
The applicants complain that the courts decided arbitrarily in that they refused to order their neighbours to remove the gas connection and that the proceedings lasted an unreasonably long time. They rely on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the relevant part of which provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
a) The applicants complain that their right to a fair hearing was violated in that the domestic courts failed to establish the relevant facts 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).
In the present case the domestic courts duly examined the applicants’ claims and gave sufficient reasons for their judgments. Their decisions were based on expert opinions and the Court finds no indication that the conclusions reached by them were arbitrary. Furthermore, there is no appearance of unfairness or arbitrariness in the proceedings in question which would infringe the guarantees of a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
b) To the extent that the applicants complain about the length of the proceedings, 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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint concerning the length of the proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy