AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 33089/96
by V. S.
against the Slovak Republic
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 4 March 1998, the following members being present:
MM J.-C. GEUS, President
M.A. NOWICKI
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
Mrs G.H. THUNE
MM F. MARTINEZ
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
A. ARABADJIEV
Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 10 July 1996 by
V. S. against the Slovak Republic and registered on 20 September 1996
under file No. 33089/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Slovak national born in 1915. He is retired
and resides in Cífer.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
A. Particular circumstances of the case
On 6 October 1992 the applicant claimed compensation on the
ground that on 24 June 1951 officials of the National Committee in
Cífer had forcibly evicted his family from his house and, whilst doing
so, had damaged his furniture. The applicant submitted written
statements by three witnesses confirming that on 24 June 1951 furniture
belonging to the applicant's family had been forcibly removed from the
house in question in the absence of the owners. On 24 November 1993
the Ministry of the Interior dismissed the claim as it did not find it
established that the applicant had been evicted from his home. The
applicant then lodged his claim before the Bratislava 2 District Court
(Obvodny súd).
On 30 June 1995 the Bratislava 2 District Court dismissed the
applicant's claim. It established that on 24 June 1951 the applicant's
furniture had been removed from the house in question and that
subsequently the applicant had refused to recover it as it had been
damaged. The court further found that at the relevant time the
applicant had not resided in the house and that it had been rented to
several persons.
The District Court recalled that under Section 3 of Law
No. 319/1991 (see "The relevant domestic law" below) the applicant was
entitled to compensation only if he and his family had been evicted
from their home, i.e. a place in which they had actually resided.
Since at the relevant time the applicant and his family had resided in
a different house, the court considered that the applicant's claim had
no legal basis in Slovak law.
The applicant appealed to the Bratislava City Court (Mestsky
súd). He submitted a document dated 10 March 1952 and signed by the
president of the National Committee in Cífer by which the applicant had
been invited to remove his furniture from the communal barn within
three days. The applicant requested that the contents of this document
be included in the record of the court hearing which was held on
24 November 1995, but the president of the court's chamber only made
a general reference to it in the record.
On 24 November 1995 the Bratislava City Court upheld the District
Court's judgment of 30 June 1995. The City Court held that the first
instance court had established the facts of the applicant's case
correctly and that in the course of the proceedings before the
appellate court the applicant had not submitted any new evidence that
would permit the court to reach a different conclusion. No reference
was made to the aforesaid document of 10 March 1952 in the judgment.
The City Court held that the applicant was not entitled to
compensation as he had not been evicted from his home within the
meaning of Section 3 of Law No. 319/1991. The City Court's judgment
was served on 10 January 1996.
The applicant complained about the proceedings in his case to the
Constitutional Court (Ústavny súd). On 24 June 1996 a judge of the
latter informed the applicant that the Constitutional Court lacked
jurisdiction to review decisions of the general courts.
B. The relevant domestic law
Section 3 para. 1 of Law No. 319/1991 on Mitigation of Certain
Wrongs of Material Nature and on Powers of State Authorities in the
Sphere of Extrajudicial Rehabilitation (Zákon o zmiernení niektorych
majetkovych krívd a o pôsobnosti orgánov státnej správy Slovenskej
republiky v oblasti mimosúdnych rehabilitácií), enacted on
13 August 1991 and amended on 27 October 1992, entitled to redress
individuals permanently resident within the territory of the Czech and
Slovak Federal Republic who had been forcibly evicted from their home
between 1948 and 1953.
Pursuant to Section 3 para. 2 (b) of Law No. 319/1991, the
persons set out in Section 3 para. 1 were entitled to compensation of
60,000 Czechoslovak crowns for their forcible eviction and for the
damage to their movables.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that
on 24 June 1951 his family was unlawfully evicted and that his
belongings were damaged.
The applicant further complains that his claim for compensation
was not granted, that the courts did not establish the facts of his
case correctly and that the Bratislava City Court ignored the evidence
before it as in its judgment there is no reference to the document of
10 March 1952. He alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant alleges a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the
Convention in that his family was forcibly evicted from his house and
that his belongings were damaged.
The Commission recalls that it can examine applications only to
the extent that these relate to events occurring after the Convention
entered into force with respect to the relevant Contracting Party. The
Commission has found earlier that it has jurisdiction to examine
applications against the Slovak Republic concerning matters which are
subsequent to 18 March 1992, i.e. the date when the Convention was
ratified by the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (see
No. 23131/93, Dec. 4.3.96, D.R. 85-B, pp. 78, 79).
In the present case the property of the applicant's family was
removed on 24 June 1951 and the Commission, therefore, lacks temporal
jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's complaints in this respect.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione temporis with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 2(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicant further complains that the proceedings concerning
his claim for compensation were not fair and that the judicial
decisions on this claim were arbitrary. He alleges a violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which provides, in so
far as relevant, as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...
everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law..."
The Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19
(Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance
of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention. In
particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging
that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts,
except where it considers that such errors might have involved a
possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention (see eg. No. 25062/94, Dec. 18.10.95, D.R. 83-A, pp. 77,
86).
The Commission further recalls that a court's failure to discuss
every detail of a party's arguments is not in itself inconsistent with
the requirements of a fair hearing. It is, however, essential that the
party's right to be heard is not disregarded and that his or her
pleadings are considered by the court even if this is not reflected in
explicit terms in the eventual decision (see No. 10153/82,
Dec. 13.10.86, D.R. 49, pp. 67, 74).
In the present case, the Bratislava 2 District Court examined the
applicant's case and found that at the relevant time the applicant and
his family had not resided in the house from which his belongings had
been removed. It therefore considered that the applicant had not been
forcibly evicted from his home within the meaning of Section 3 para. 1
of Law No. 319/1991, and concluded that he was not entitled to
compensation under the aforesaid Law.
The applicant appealed and submitted a document dated
10 March 1952. He referred to this document in the course of the
hearing before the Bratislava City Court, and the president of the
latter's chamber entered this fact into the record of the hearing.
Thus, the applicant's right to be heard by the court was not
disregarded.
The Commission notes that this document stated that the
applicant's furniture was stored in the communal barn and invited the
applicant to collect it within three days. It did not provide any
information about the circumstances under which the belongings of the
applicant's family had been removed and, in the Commission's view,
objectively it was not capable of affecting the court's finding that
the applicant had not been forcibly evicted from his home within the
meaning of Section 3 para. 1 of Law No. 319/1991.
In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the absence
of any reference to the document of 10 March 1952 in the Bratislava
City Court's judgment did not interfere with the applicant's right to
a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of
the Convention. Furthermore, the Commission has before it no
information that would indicate that the decision to dismiss the
applicant's claim was unfair or arbitrary.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER J.-C. GEUS
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy