FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 69145/01
by Vladimír SIKA
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 25 February 2000 and registered on 27 April 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vladimír Sika, is a Slovakian national born in 1937 and living in Trnava.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1993 the applicant claimed compensation from a limited liability company on the ground that the latter had failed to comply with a contract.
On 12 November 1993 the Zvolen District court delivered a payment order by which it allowed the applicant’s claim.
On 25 November 1993 the defendant company challenged the payment order.
Subsequently, the applicant extended his action. On 28 September 1994 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the additional claims.
On 4 March 1996 the Zvolen District Court allowed the applicant’s action.
On 28 May 1996 the defendant appealed.
On 10 December 1997 the vice-president of the Banská Bystrica Regional Court informed the applicant, in reply to his complaint, that the judges had a heavy workload and that it was not possible to tell when the case would be proceeded with.
On 2 September 1998 the applicant claimed before the appellate court that the sum awarded to him should be increased.
On 9 September 1998 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment of 4 March 1996.
On 18 November 1998 the applicant requested the District Court to take further evidence. On 23 November 1998 he again increased the sum claimed by him. The court accepted this amendment of the action on 3 May 1999.
On 10 May 2000 the Zvolen District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It held that the contract in question was void as it neither specified the sum to be paid for the services offered by the applicant, nor did it stipulate that the parties had agreed to its conclusion without specifying the price, as required by Article 536 of the Commercial Code.
On 1 May 2000 the applicant appealed.
On 19 December 2000 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment of 10 May 2000. It considered irrelevant the applicant’s argument that the defendant company had benefited from the services offered by the applicant for a certain time.
On 20 February 2001 the president of the Zvolen District Court admitted that the overall length of the proceedings was also due to inactivity of the court.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to apply the 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