SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 40345/98
by Dušan STANČIAK
against the Slovak Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 31 August 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 9 February 1998 and registered on 18 March 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 Slovak national, born in 1953 and living in Nitra.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1991 the applicant and his wife divorced. The judgment concerning the divorce became final in August 1993. On 27 October 1993 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava-vidiek District Court (Okresný súd) claiming separation of the matrimonial property.
On 21 January 1994 the District Court invited the applicant to pay the court fees. The applicant paid the fees and appointed a lawyer to represent him on 31 January 1994.
A hearing before the Bratislava-vidiek District Court was held on 20 May 1994.
On 30 May 1994 the court asked the applicant to submit further documents.
On 7 June 1994 the applicant completed his action. On 14, 15 and 24 June 1994 he submitted further documents.
On 30 September 1994 another hearing was held.
On 26 October 1994 the District Court asked for information concerning the applicant's health.
A hearing was held on 15 November 1994.
On 11 January 1995 the District Court received further documentary evidence which it had requested on 12 December 1994.
On 12 April 1995 the District Court appointed an expert with a view to evaluating the marital assets. The decision ordered the parties to assist the expert and to pay an advance on his fees. It was served on the applicant's lawyer on 6 June 1995. Under the relevant law the decision was also to be served on the applicant in person.
On 13 September 1995 and on 20 November 1995 the judge instructed the District Court's registry to serve the decision of 12 April 1995 on the applicant. As the attempts to serve the decision failed, the District Court asked the police to serve it on 9 February 1996. On 27 May 1996 the police informed the District Court that the applicant was not staying at his permanent address.
On 3 July 1996 the District Court asked the central registry of inhabitants to establish the applicant's address. The reply of 4 July 1996 indicated that the applicant's address remained unchanged.
On 12 July 1996 the applicant's lawyer asked the District Court to inform her about the progress of the proceedings.
On 9 September 1996 the District Court asked the lawyer to indicate the applicant's address. The letter stated that the court could not proceed with the case as the decision of 12 April 1995 could not be served on the applicant in person.
On 20 September 1996 the lawyer informed the District Court that the applicant's address remained unchanged and that other correspondence was delivered to him without difficulties.
The decision of 12 April 1995 was served on the applicant on 15 November 1996.
On 19 November 1996 the District Court transmitted the case file to the expert. The latter submitted his opinion on 29 January 1997.
On 18 March 1997 the applicant challenged the judges of the Bratislava-vidiek District Court (which had been replaced by the Bratislava III District Court in the meantime) on the ground that there had been undue delays in the proceedings. As he had received no reply, the applicant reiterated the request on 25 June 1997.
On 2 September 1997 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) that he had received no reply to his request and that the District Court had held the last hearing twenty-nine months ago. The Supreme Court transmitted the complaint to the Bratislava III District Court on 19 September 1997.
On 21 October 1997 the vice-president of the Bratislava III District Court informed the applicant that the District Court judges had been asked, on 21 March 1997, to submit their comments on the applicant's request for their exclusion and that the request would be submitted to the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd). The vice-president of the District Court offered an apology to the applicant for delays imputable to her court.
The case file was transmitted to the Bratislava Regional Court on 24 November 1997. The Regional Court returned the file back to the District Court on 4 December 1997 with the instruction to have the request completed by the applicant.
On 8 January 1998 the applicant complained to the president of the Bratislava Regional Court that his case had not been proceeded with since 1995 and requested that it should be given priority.
On 27 January 1998 the president of the Regional Court informed the applicant that the District Court had not submitted the file concerning his case to the Regional Court and that the president of the District Court had been asked to inform her about the proceedings.
On 30 January 1998 the Bratislava III District Court asked the applicant to submit additional information in respect of his request for exclusion of judges.
On 24 April 1998 the applicant withdrew his request for exclusion of judges. He explained that the Bratislava III District Court, which had replaced the former Bratislava – vidiek District Court, had not yet dealt with the merits of his case. He had therefore no reason for challenging its judges.
On 27 April 1998 the president of the Bratislava III District Court assigned the case to a section set up with a view to accelerating proceedings in all cases concerning separation of matrimonial property which had been pending for more than four years.
The Bratislava III District Court held a hearing on 3 July 1998. The case was adjourned so that the parties could discuss the possibility of reaching a settlement.
On 11 August 1998 the District Court asked the parties to submit their comments on the expert opinion dated 25 January 1997. The applicant replied on 21 August 1998. The defendant submitted her comments on 16 September 1998.
A hearing scheduled for 18 September 1998 was adjourned until 4 November 1998. The applicant was asked to reply to the defendant's submissions of 16 September 1998. He submitted his comments on 22 September 1998.
On 4 November 1998 the District Court attempted to have the case settled.
Another hearing was held on 19 December 1998. The applicant did not appear explaining that his new lawyer needed more time for studying the case file. The case was adjourned until 19 February 1999. On the latter date the District Court heard the parties.
On 14 April 1999 the Bratislava III District Court heard the parties and took evidence.
A hearing held on 26 May 1999 was adjourned as the parties had stated that they would attempt to settle the case. On 14 June 1999 the defendant informed the court that a friendly settlement of the case was not possible.
The District Court scheduled the next hearing for 19 January 2000.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning his action for separation of matrimonial property have lasted unreasonably long.
THE LAW
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning his action for separation of matrimonial property have lasted unreasonably long.
The Government object that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies as he did not lodge a petition with the Constitutional Court pursuant to Article 130 § 3 of the Constitution.
The Court has found in a similar case that this remedy need not be exhausted and it sees no reason for reaching a different conclusion in the present case (see Bánošová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 38798/97, 27.4.2000, unreported). Accordingly, the application cannot be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
As to the merits, the Government contend that the case is complex, that the applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings in that he failed to appear at the hearing on 19 December 1998 and that his reactions to the defendant's submissions have been inadequate. The Government admit that there were certain delays imputable to the domestic courts at the earlier stage of proceedings. However, this shortcoming was remedied in that the case was assigned, on 27 April 1998, to a special section within the Bratislava III District Court with a view to accelerating the proceedings.
The applicant submits that the length of the proceedings has been excessive and that it is imputable to the domestic courts. He alleges, in particular, that he cannot be held responsible for the delay in serving the Bratislava-vidiek District Court's decision of 12 April 1995 as he was staying, throughout the relevant period, at his permanent address and was receiving other correspondence addressed to him. The applicant maintains that the case is complex as a result of the courts' failure to proceed with it speedily as many of the relevant facts have become difficult to establish after the lapse of several years.
The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
SECOND SECTION
[PARTIAL] [FINAL] DECISION
[AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF]
Application no. 40345/98
by Dušan STANČIAK
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on MACROBUTTON nomacro [Click and type Date] as a Chamber composed of
MACROBUTTON nomacro [Click and via Alt+S insert Chamber e.g. eF1C]
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar;
Having regard to the above application introduced on 9 February 1998 and registered on 18 March 1998;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy