EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
SECOND CHAMBER
Application No. 26384/95
Mária SAMKOVÁ
against
the Slovak Republic
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 15 January 1997)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
PART II : SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
INTRODUCTION
1. This Report relates to the application introduced under
Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Mária Samková against the Slovak
Republic on 10 November 1994. It was registered on 2 February 1995
under file No. 26384/95.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr. J. Maly, a lawyer practising
in Bratislava.
3. The Government of the Slovak Republic were represented by their
Agent, Mr. Robert Fico.
4. On 26 June 1996 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared the
application admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under
Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:
"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to
it:
a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake
together with the representatives of the parties an examination
of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the
effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all
necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the
Commission;
b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of
the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly
settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights
as defined in this Convention."
5. The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had
reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 15 January 1997 it
adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of
the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of
the solution reached.
6. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:
Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President
MM. J.-C. GEUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
7. The applicant is a Slovak national born in 1917. She is retired
and resides in Dolné Vestenice.
8. In 1961 a plot owned by the applicant and her late husband was
expropriated for construction of a zoological garden. In 1963 they
received compensation according to the rules then in force.
9. In 1991 the applicant claimed restitution. As the administration
of the zoological garden refused to restore the property, the applicant
claimed restitution before the Bratislava Land Office pursuant to
Section 9 para. 4 of the Land Ownership Act.
10. On 7 April 1992 the Land Office held an examination of the area.
Its aim was to determine whether the land served the purpose for which
it had been initially expropriated. The applicant attended the
examination together with some 15 other claimants. The record drawn
up after the examination does not contain any reference to the plot
claimed by the applicant and to the comments she made in the course of
the examination.
11. On 31 January 1994 the Land Office dismissed the applicant's
claim. It found, with reference to information submitted by the
administration of the zoological garden and to the letter of the City
Council of 25 January 1994, that since animals owned by the zoological
garden were kept on the plot, it was used for the purpose for which it
had been expropriated. Therefore, it could not be restored pursuant
to Section 6 para. 1 (m) of the Land Ownership Act.
12. On 8 March 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal to the Bratislava
City Court. She alleged that pursuant to Section 6 para. 1 (m) and (r)
of the Land Ownership Act she was entitled to restitution of the land
as the expropriation had not respected human rights since it had aimed
at the liquidation of private property. She further alleged that no
animals had been kept on the plot at issue during the relevant period
(i.e. between 1961 and 1 January 1990). She maintained that animals
could be kept on the plot only if the original construction plans had
been carried out, which was not the case. The applicant concluded that
her former plot had never served the purpose for which it had been
expropriated. She proposed to hear witnesses including the
participants in the examination which had taken place on 7 April 1992.
The applicant expressly requested the court to hold an oral hearing.
13. Before submitting the applicant's appeal to the City Court, the
Land Office ordered a second examination of the site which was
connected with an oral hearing pursuant to Section 21 of the
Administrative Proceedings Act. It took place on 24 March 1994.
14. According to the record there were still some fruit trees on the
plot originally owned by the applicant. The representative of the
zoological garden disagreed with the proposal to restore the plot and
stated that animals would be kept again on it later that year. The
Land Office concluded that the property at issue could not be restored.
The applicant attended the examination but the record contains no note
of whether she made any statements.
15. On 11 May 1994 the Bratislava City Court upheld the Land Office's
decision of 31 January 1994. The court held that the plot was part of
the zoological garden's area and therefore served the general purpose
of the 1961 expropriation, i.e. the construction of a zoological
garden. In the court's view it was irrelevant whether or not animals
were kept on the plot since it served the needs of the zoo as a whole,
e.g. for aesthetic and functional purposes.
16. The City Court found that since compensation had been paid to the
former owners, the expropriation could not be regarded as lacking
respect for human rights. With reference to Section 250f of the Code
of Civil Procedure it considered that no hearing was necessary in the
applicant's case.
17. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court in which
she alleged that the proceedings before the Bratislava City Court had
been unfair. On 29 September 1994 the Supreme Court discontinued the
proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.
18. Before the Commission, the applicant alleged a violation of
Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in the proceedings before the
Bratislava Land Office and the Bratislava City Court in that (i) the
decisions had been based exclusively on the arguments presented by the
defendant, (ii) the court had reached an unfair decision because of
erroneous interpretation of the law, (iii) the court had refused to
hear witnesses and failed to establish the facts of the case, and (iv)
there had been no public hearing in her case.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
19. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,
the Commission (Second Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the
parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance
with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties
to submit any proposals they wished to make.
20. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary,
acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to
explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.
21. By letter of 23 August 1996 the Government notified the
Commission that their proposals for a friendly settlement made to the
applicant on 21 August 1996 had been accepted by her. The agreement
about friendly settlement, signed by both parties, reads as follows:
[Translation]
"... the Government of the Slovak Republic shall provide the
necessary legal conditions for an oral hearing of the applicant's
claim so that all guarantees laid down by Article 6 para. 1 of
the Convention are respected. For this purpose:
a) the applicant shall file a re-trial petition with the
Bratislava II District Office (hereinafter the District Office)
for new proceedings;
b) the District Office shall consider the decision of the
Commission of 26 June 1996 on the admissibility of the
application to be a new fact of considerable importance
justifying the commencement of new proceedings in the restitution
claim which has already been finally decided;
c) following the approval to commence the new proceedings the
District Office shall be ready to consider the applicant's claim
by conducting an oral hearing and examination of the site within
the intentions of this agreement, the merits of the application
and the reasons of the decision of the Commission on the
admissibility of the application;
d) should the applicant's case be unsuccessful at the oral
hearing before the District Office, the Bratislava City Court
shall be ready to decide on the appeal at an oral hearing in
conformity with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention and within the intentions of this agreement, the
merits of the application and reasons of the decision of the
Commission on the admissibility of the application.
This Agreement shall not be interpreted as any admission by the
Government of the Slovak Republic of any violation of the
Convention.
The Government of the Slovak Republic, shall, in an adequate
manner, draw the attention of the national judicial authorities
to the urgent need of the respect for the requirements contained
in Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention when applying the
provisions of Section 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure."
22. At its session on 15 January 1997, the Commission noted that the
parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.
It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the
Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured
on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.
23. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy