THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 45086/98
by Vasiliy Ivanovich SLICHKO
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
13 February 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrP. Kūris,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrsH.S. Greve,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze, judges,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrK. Traja, substitute judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 April 1998 and registered on 18 December 1998,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Ukrainian national, born in 1919 and living in Nizhni Vorta (Ukraine).
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
From 5 May 1943 to 9 May 1945 the applicant was serving in the former Czechoslovak foreign army during the Second World War. After the Second World War, between 10 May 1945 and 1 August 1949, he was serving in the regular Czechoslovak army. In 1944 he suffered injuries, as confirmed the former Czechoslovak Ministry of National Defence (Ministerstvo národní obrany) on 20 March 1985.
On 1 August 1949 the applicant was dismissed from the army, allegedly without any reasons. Shortly afterwards, he was arrested and detained in the territory of former Czechoslovakia. On an unspecified date, the applicant left Czechoslovakia to live in Germany and the United States. It is not clear when he returned to the Ukraine where he had been living before the Second World War.
On 7 December 1992 the former Federal Ministry of Defence of the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic agreed that the applicant had been dismissed from the army for the reasons set out in section 21 of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitation Act. The Ministry delivered the certificate for the purposes of awarding damages to the applicant under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitation Act.
On an unspecified date, the applicant applied to the Czech authorities for a pension, pursuant to the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitation Act. By letter of
16 October 1991 from the Division of rehabilitation and appeal of the former Federal Ministry of Defence (Oddělení rehabilitační a odvolací Federálního ministerstva obrany), the applicant was informed that the Division had received his appeal against the decision of the Central Rehabilitation Commission (Centrální rehabilitační komice) and that he would be notified of the result of his appeal.
The applicant has not submitted any relevant documents concerning these matters.
B. Relevant domestic law
Extra-Judicial Rehabilitation Act No. 87/1991
Section 21(1)(e) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitation Act provides that any legal operation by which the employment relationship was terminated during the period from 25 February 1948 to 1 January 1990, in particular, an agreement on the severance of the employment relationship, is considered void if the termination was carried out as a result of political persecution or violated generally recognised human rights and freedoms.
Section 24 provides inter alia that if the severance of the employment relationship is void under section 21, the period between the termination of this employment relationship and the date on which the person concerned presents his or her claim to retirement or disability benefit is considered as a period of employment.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that the Czech authorities have refused him the pension to which he is entitled as a former army officer serving in the Czechoslovak army. He invokes, in substance, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the Czech authorities have refused him the pension to which he is entitled as a former army officer. He invokes, in substance, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention which guarantees property rights.
The Court first notes that it can only examine, with reference to Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention, events which occurred on the territory of the Czech Republic after 18 March 1992, which is the date of the entry into force of the Convention with regard to the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and which is also the date of its recognition of the right of individual petition (see Kuchař and Štis v. the Czech Republic, application no. 37527/97, Section 3 decision of 23 January 2000, and Malhous v. the Czech Republic, application no. 33071/96, Grand Chamber decision of
13 December 2000, ECHR 2000). The Court considers, therefore, that the applicant’s complaints of facts that occurred before that date are outside its competence ratione temporis.
Furthermore, the Court notes that domestic law apparently grants the applicant an entitlement to an army pension but he alleges that he has been refused one. However, the applicant has failed to produce any of the decisions concerned or shown that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies before the competent courts.
In these circumstances the Court concludes that the applicant failed to comply with the requirement as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The application must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy