FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 50232/99
by Z.M. and K.P.
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 November 2003 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi
MrL. Garlicki, judges
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 June 1999,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant, Z.M., is the mother of the second applicant, K.P. The applicants were born in Slovakia in 1960 and 1981, respectively. They are both Slovakian and Canadian nationals and presently live in Toronto (Canada).
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
In 1985 the Bratislava 4 District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd) decreed the first applicant’s divorce from Mr P., the biological father of the second applicant (the “father”). The first applicant was entrusted the care and custody of the second applicant. The parents of the father were ordered to contribute to the costs of the second applicant’s maintenance.
At an unspecified time the first applicant married M. (the “husband”) and, in 1993, both applicants moved to Canada.
Proceedings concerning maintenance of the first applicant
There were several judicial decisions determining the duty of the father’s parents and of the father to contribute to the second applicant’s maintenance. The last decision in this respect was given by the Bratislava 5 District Court on 22 November 1989 when the District Court approved an agreement between the first applicant and the father on the amount of the contributions that the father would pay on monthly basis.
The first applicant filed numerous unsuccessful criminal complaints against the father accusing him of having neglected his duty to pay maintenance in respect of the second applicant. The last complaint was rejected on 1 February 1996 by the Šaľa District Police Department. It noted that the father had been in default with payments for several months but concluded that, in the given circumstances, this did not amount to a criminal offence.
The first applicant filed several unsuccessful petitions for judicial enforcement of the decisions concerning the maintenance against the father. The last petition was filed with the Dunajská Streda District Court on 2 April 1996. On 28 August 1996 the District Court discontinued proceedings on this petition as the first applicant had failed to comply with its prior written instruction to bring it in line with the applicable procedural rules.
Proceedings concerning care, education, adoption and parental rights concerning the second applicant
On 8 January 1996 the first applicant’s mother (the “mother”) filed an action to the Dunajská Streda District Court claiming that she should be granted the right to educate the second applicant. She relied on Section 45 of the Family Act and maintained that the first applicant had failed to take proper care of the second applicant. She also claimed that the first applicant and the father be ordered to contribute to the second applicant’s maintenance.
On 31 January 1996 the husband of the first applicant lodged a request for adoption of the second applicant. On 15 February 1996 he re‑submitted the request and specified that he sought a revocable form of adoption.
On 19 February 1996 the first applicant filed an objection to the District Court claiming that it had no territorial competence to entertain the action.
On 28 February 1996, following the husband’s withdrawal of his requests for adoption, the District Court discontinued the proceedings on this issue.
A hearing scheduled for 28 February 1996 had to be adjourned as the first applicant was ill. The court heard the parties on 15 April 1996.
On 15 April 1996 the father joined the proceedings and requested that the mother’s action be granted.
In April and May 1996 the first applicant challenged the judge dealing with the case. For this reason the hearing scheduled for 13 May 1996 was adjourned. The case‑file was submitted to the Trnava Regional Court for a decision on the request for exclusion of the judge.
On 27 May 1996 the first applicant filed a petition with the Bratislava Regional Court claiming that the father be deprived of his parental rights over the second applicant.
On 3 July 1996 the Dunajská Streda District Prosecutor joined the proceedings.
On 11 July 1996 the Regional Court sent the file back to the District Court and instructed it to invite the first applicant to specify her objection to the District Court judge. Subsequently the police informed the District Court that the two applicants had left Slovakia for Canada in June 1996.
The case file was again sent to the Regional Court in September 1996. On 18 October 1996 the Regional Court returned the file to the District Court after having decided that the latter’s judges were not biased.
A hearing before the District Court was held on 28 November 1996.
Following their arrival for a temporary stay in Slovakia, the District Court heard the first applicant and her husband on 5 December 1996. It also heard the second applicant on 10 December 1996.
On 18 December 1996 the case was adjourned.
On 14 January 1997 the first applicant filed a petition with the Dunajská Streda District Court. She referred to the court file number of the above proceedings and again claimed that the father be deprived of his parental rights over the second applicant.
On 19 December 1996 the District Court dismissed the mother’s request for an interim measure to be issued.
On 16 January 1997 the District Court heard witnesses.
On 30 January 1997 the District Court appointed an expert in psychology with a view to obtaining an opinion on the second applicant. The latter filed an appeal against this decision.
On 13 February 1997 the expert informed the District Court that she was not in a position to submit an opinion because of a heavy workload.
On 21 February 1997 the District Court dismissed the father’s request for an interim measure preventing the second applicant from travelling to Canada without his consent.
Hearings were scheduled for 18 February 1997 and 6 March 1997. On the latter date the District Court heard the parties. The case was adjourned as the court considered it necessary to obtain an expert opinion.
On 7 March 1997 the first applicant filed an appeal “against all decisions” delivered by the judge dealing with the case.
On 10 March 1997 the father appealed against the decision of 21 February 1997. He also claimed that his rights to meet the second applicant be determined by the court.
On 20 March 1997 the first applicant requested that further documentary evidence be taken.
On 27 March 1997 the husband again filed a request for adoption of the second applicant. According to the information available in the court‑file, this request has not been decided upon.
On 1 April 1997 the case was assigned to a different judge.
On the same day the second applicant informed the District Court in writing that she did not wish to meet her father and that she lived in Canada where she was undergoing a treatment.
On 13 May 1997 the District Court submitted the case file to the Trnava Regional Court for a decision on the appeals filed by the parties. On 23 June 1996 the Regional Court returned the file to the District Court and asked the latter to ensure that formal shortcomings in the first applicant’s appeal of 7 March 1997 be eliminated.
On 4 July and on 5 August 1997 the judge asked the first applicant to eliminate shortcomings in her submissions.
On 28 July 1997 the Regional Court dismissed the second applicant’s appeal against the decision on appointment of an expert and quashed the above District Court’s decision of 21 February 1996.
On 15 September 1997 the father of the first applicant informed the court that the applicants were staying in Canada.
On 24 October 1997 the father informed the court that the applicants had left for Canada on 6 May 1997.
In November 1997 and in January 1998 the court attempted to establish the address of the applicants in Canada. The information was submitted to it by the police on 29 January 1998.
On 24 February 1998 the District Court issued an interim measure in which it, inter alia, prohibited the applicants from travelling to Canada. At that time both applicants were in Canada. On 25 March 1998 the husband appealed against this decision. The first applicant also appealed.
On 26 August 1998 the Trnava Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision to the extent that it prohibited the applicants from travelling abroad.
On 28 October 1998 the first applicant requested that further evidence be taken. On 10 December 1998 she informed the District Court that she had withdrawn the power of attorney of her husband to represent her in the proceedings.
The District Court judge dealing with the case was ill for a considerable period between August 1998 and January 1999 and also between March and May 1999.
On 21 April 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the mother’s constitutional right to a hearing without undue delays had been violated. In its decision the Constitutional Court admitted that the length of the proceedings was due, to a certain extent, to the behaviour of the parties. However, the case was not particularly complex and what was at stake in the proceedings called for particular diligence. The Constitutional Court further noted that the District Court had caused undue delays in the proceedings in that, by failing to decide in time on the above request for an interim measure to be issued, it had brought about the need to ask the Canadian authorities for assistance. Furthermore, by the time the Constitutional Court decided on the case, the District Court judge had not yet arranged for such a request to be sent to the Canadian authorities.
The Constitutional Court’s decision stated that the District Court had not proceeded with the case effectively in that it had failed to take evidence, including an expert opinion, required for a decision on the case. Delays in the proceedings had also arisen as a result of the ordinary courts’ failure to decide on the requests for an interim measure to be issued within the statutory time-limit. Finally, the Constitutional Court noted that the District Court had failed to take any effective action in the case since 4 September 1998.
In accordance with its common practice, the Constitutional Court judgment was subsequently published on the official web site of the Constitutional Court. In the published version the parties to the proceedings, including the applicants, and all other individuals concerned were referred to by their initials. The applicants’ address in Canada was however set out in full.
On 3 September 1999 the District Court judge prepared a request for assistance which was to be submitted to the Canadian authorities through the Ministry of Justice.
In a letter of 26 May 1999, in response to the first applicant’s complaint, the President of the District Court accepted that there had been undue delays in the proceedings.
By two decisions delivered on 21 January 2000 the District Court discontinued both the proceedings on the mother’s claim of 8 January 1996 and on the biological father’s claim of 10 March 1997. The decisions stated that the second applicant had reached her majority on 19 November 1999.
Proceedings on protection of applicants’ personal integrity and family
On 6 May 1996 the first applicant and her husband filed a civil action against the mother with the Bratislava 2 District Court. They demanded protection of their personal integrity and of their family’s privacy. Later they extended the action against the father and his lawyer G.
On 22 May 1996 the Bratislava 2 District Court sent the case-file to the Dunajská Streda District Court for reasons of territorial jurisdiction.
According to the information available in the case‑file, the District Court discontinued the proceedings following a withdrawal of the action by the second applicant at some point in or after February 2002.
Other facts invoked by the applicants
In the years 1979-80, the first applicant aborted a child she was expecting with the father. She did so under pressure from the father and her family.
In 1981 the father beat the first applicant while she was carrying a baby - the second applicant.
In 1983 and 1985 the father beat the first applicant and, in the latter year, he raped her.
In 1991 the first applicant was expecting another baby. Third persons exercised pressure on her. She received medical treatment including an injection. The first applicant miscarried the child. In connection with these facts, the first applicant filed criminal complaints upon which, according to her, the police failed to take any action.
In 1992 the father physically molested the first applicant. The applicant attempted to file a criminal complaint of this incident but the police refused to accept any information concerning it.
On 23 May 1993 the father attempted to forcibly enter into the first applicant’s apartment. She called the police and filed a criminal complaint against him. The police refused to take criminal proceedings against the father.
On 27 March 1997 the first applicant filed a criminal complaint against the father’s lawyer, G., accusing him of defamation.
In December 1997 the father physically attacked the first applicant’s husband and damaged his property.
B. Relevant domestic law
The Family Act
Pursuant to Section 45(1), a court may empower a person other than parents to educate a child when the interests of the child so require and provided that such a person offers the guarantee of educating the child in an appropriate manner. In doing so the court shall determine the scope of rights and obligations such a person shall have in respect of the child.
The Civil Code
According to Article 11, any natural person has the right to protection of his or her personal integrity (osobnosť), in particular of his or her life and health, civil and human dignity, privacy, name and personal characteristics.
Pursuant to Article 13 (1), any natural person has the right to request that unjustified infringement of his or her personal rights should be stopped and the consequences of such infringement eliminated, and to obtain appropriate satisfaction.
Article 13 (2) provides that in cases when the satisfaction obtained under Article 13 (1) is insufficient, in particular because a person’s dignity and position in society has been considerably diminished, the injured person is entitled to compensation for non-pecuniary damage. According to paragraph 3 of Article 13, when determining the amount of such compensation the courts have to take into account the seriousness of the prejudice suffered by the person concerned and also the circumstances under which the violation of that person’s rights occurred.
COMPLAINTS[Note1]
1. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants complain that:
(a) it has been impossible for them to enforce the decisions concerning the second applicant’s maintenance against the father;
(b) the proceedings on care and education of the second applicant were not fair in that a public prosecutor took part in them and the courts were sending court mail to them at a wrong address;
(c) they had no access to a court in that the courts failed to determine the actions of 27 May 1996 and 14 January 1997 for deprivation of the father’s parental rights over the second applicant and the action of 27 March 1997 for the second applicant’s adoption;
(d) the judges involved in all of their proceedings lacked impartiality and independence and;
(e) all of their proceedings lasted unreasonably long.
2. The applicants also complain under Article 8 of the Convention that
(a) it was impossible for them to enforce the decisions concerning the second applicant’s maintenance against the father;
(b) the mother’s action for care and education of the second applicant was of a purely vexatious nature, that it was not possible under Slovakian law to strike this action as such out of the court’s agenda and that the proceedings in the case arbitrarily interfered with their privacy. In particular, they complain that Slovakian authorities improperly investigated into their private and family life in Canada and that, in the course of the proceedings, they had to submit themselves to interrogation by the judge, the plaintiffs and their lawyer concerning their private and family life;
(c) the courts failed to decide on their claim for deprivation of the father’s parental rights over the second applicant which prevented the husband from adopting her;
(d) their telephone communications were blocked and taped, that their mail communication was interfered with, that several mail packages got lost, that official mail was sent to a wrong address and that some of their financial transactions were interfered with;
(e) that the Constitutional Court published its finding of 21 April 1999 in the internet by which it improperly disclosed untrue and offensive information about their family to the public at large.
3. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicants complain that they had no effective remedy as regards:
(a) their complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of their court proceedings;
(b) their complaint under Article 8 of the Convention concerning interference with their telephone and mail communications and sending official mail to a wrong address.
4. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicants complain that, as a result of the other alleged violations of their rights, they suffered material losses for which they have not been compensated.
5. The first applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that she was forced into an abortion in 1979-80 and in 1991.
6. Relying on Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, the first applicant further complains that she was beaten, molested and raped by the father, that the police failed to provide her effective protection in this respect and that, under Slovakian law, she could not obtain a judicial order against the father to restrain him from abusing her.
7. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the first applicant also complains that she is discriminated against in the Dunajská Streda region on the ground that she does not speak Hungarian language and that she married a Canadian national.
8. The applicants finally complain of a violation of their rights under Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention in connection with the above facts.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain about the lack of enforcement of court decisions, and about unfairness of their proceedings, lack of access to a court, lack of impartiality of tribunals and the length of their proceedings. They rely on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, insofar as relevant, provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by ... impartial tribunal ...”
(a) The applicants raise various complaints concerning the proceedings on the second applicant’s maintenance.
(i) The Court notes that, in respect of the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, to which Slovakia is one of the successor states, the Convention entered into force on 18 March 1992. To the extent that the applicants complain about events that took place prior to this date, the Court finds that it has no temporal jurisdiction to entertain such complaints.
It follows that the relevant part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
(ii) The Court further notes that the application was introduced on 7 June 1999. The remaining facts that the applicants complain of in this part of the application took place no later than on 28 August 1996. On that day, the Dunajská Streda District Court discontinued the proceedings on the first applicant’s petition for enforcement of the court‑settlement of 22 November 1989 as the first applicant had failed to comply with the court’s instruction to bring her petition in line with the applicable procedural rules.
It follows that the remainder of the relevant part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
(b) The applicants further complain that the guarantees of a fair trial before an impartial and independent tribunal were not respected in the proceedings on care and education of the second applicant.
The Court notes that these proceedings were taken by the mother against the first applicant who was providing for the care and education of the second applicant. The father later joined the mother in her action. They claimed that the second applicant be entrusted into the care of the mother. The proceedings however did not bring about the effect sought by the claimants as they were discontinued without any decision on the merits. In view of the information before it, the Court finds that this complaint does not give rise to a prima facie issue under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
It follows that, in any event, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
(c) The applicants complain that they did not have access to a court in that the courts failed to determine the action to remove the father’s parental rights and the action for the second applicant’s adoption.
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 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
(d) The applicants also complain about the proceedings in the action for protection of the applicants’ personal integrity and family. However, despite the Court’s specific written request, they failed to provide information as to when these proceedings ended or any further information that would enable an examination of this part of the application. The Court therefore finds this part of the application unsubstantiated. It follows that it is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
(e) The applicants also complain that the length of the proceedings concerning the care and education of the second applicant exceeded a “reasonable time”.
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 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicants also complain of repeated interference with their private and family life and their correspondence. They rely on Article 8 of the Convention which, insofar as relevant provides that:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
(a) Insofar as the applicants complain that they cannot have enforced the decisions on the second applicant’s maintenance, the Court notes that this complaint has the same factual background as the applicants’ respective complaint under Article 6 § 1. The Court found above that the latter complaint must be rejected partially for being incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention and partially for having been lodged out of time. The Court sees no reason for reaching a different conclusion in respect of the complaint which the applicants make under Article 8 of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
(b) The applicants complain that the proceedings on care and education of the second applicant interfered with the applicants’ private and family life in that, in particular, they entailed an undue investigation into their life in Canada on the basis of the vexatious actions of the mother and the father.
The Court notes that these proceedings were taken under the Family Code, conducted pursuant the Code of the Civil Procedure and discontinued on 21 January 2000 without any decision on the merits. An examination of the applicants’ family situation appears well justified by the nature of these proceedings. On the basis of the information and documents submitted, the Court cannot find that the mere existence of the proceedings complained of or the manner in which they were conducted amounted to an interference with the applicants’ rights protected under Article 8 of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
(c) Insofar as the applicants complain that the courts failed to decide on the actions for deprivation of parental rights and the action for adoption, 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 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
(d) The applicants further complain of interference with their telephone and mail communications and financial transactions. The Court notes at the outset that it is for the applicants complaining of an interference with their rights under the Convention to provide prima facie evidence to this effect. The Court further notes that, except for the applicants’ statements, this part of the application remained wholly unsubstantiated. Moreover, the Court has found no indication in the case‑file that the applicants have taken any steps in Slovakia with a view to having the alleged interference with their rights established, to having eliminated the consequences of such an interference or to obtaining an appropriate redress for it. In particular, they have not shown that they requested an investigation by the Slovakian telecommunication and postal authorities or instituted civil or administrative proceedings against the allegedly responsible individuals or authorities and/or filed a criminal complaint in this context (see also Macková and Macko v. Slovakia (dec.)[MK2], no. 51543/99, 1 April 2003[MK3]).
The Court therefore considers that this part of the application is manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
(e) The applicants complain that, by publishing its decision of 21 April 1999 on the internet, the Constitutional Court interfered with their rights protected under Article 8 of the Convention.
The Court notes that under Article 11 and the following provisions of the Civil Code, the applicants could have taken proceedings before a general court with a view to having the alleged interference with their personal integrity established, to eliminating the consequences of such interference and to obtaining an appropriate satisfaction for it. Such proceedings could in principle be taken against the State and/or against the individual(s) responsible for the publishing of the decision and they could be aimed inter alia at obtaining financial satisfaction by way of non‑pecuniary damages. The Court considers that, in the specific circumstances of the case, a civil action under Article 11 and following of the Civil Code was, in principle, capable of remedying the applicants’ situation. It is therefore a remedy that the applicants should have tried for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
However, the applicants have not availed themselves of this remedy.
It follows that this complaint must in any event be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 et 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
3. The applicants complain that they had no effective remedy at their disposal as regards their complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unreasonable length of their civil proceedings and as regards their complaint under Article 8 of the Convention concerning interference with their telephone and mail communications and sending mail to a wrong address. They relied on Article 13 of the Convention which provides as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
(i) To the extent the applicants complain about the absence of an effective remedy in respect of their complaint of the length of the proceedings concerning the care and education of the second applicant, 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 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
(ii) The Court has found above that the complaint of the length of the remaining sets of civil proceedings and the complaints of the interference with communications were inadmissible. For similar reasons, in this respect the applicants did not have an “arguable claim” and Article 13 is therefore inapplicable to this part of the application (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
4. The applicants also complain that, as a result of the other alleged violations, they suffered material losses for which they have not been compensated. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court notes that, under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it can only deal with matters after all domestic remedies have been exhausted.
The Court observes that, although the applicants could have done so, they have not claimed compensation for damages that they invoke in Slovakian courts.
It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 et 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
5. The applicants finally complained of a violation of their rights protected under Articles 2, 3, 5, 17 and 18 of the Convention and under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court finds that, insofar as this part of the application has been substantiated and falls within its competence, the facts of the case do not disclose any appearance of a violation of these provisions of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaints (i) under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning[Note4] the lack of access to a court in respect of the actions to deprive the father of his parental rights in respect of the second applicant and for the second applicant’s adoption; (ii) under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of the proceedings relating to the second applicant’s care and education; (iii) under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the courts’ failure to determine the actions to deprive the father of his parental rights in respect of the second applicant and for the second applicant’s adoption; and (iv) under Article 13 that the applicants had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of their complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of the proceedings on the second applicant’s care and education;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-PassosNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[Note1]Use the present tense for communication of a case (the applicant complains) and the past for a decision (the applicant complained).
[MK2]1If Grand Chamber case, add "[GC]" after "(dec.)".
[MK3]1If the decision is to be published but the volume number is not known add an ellipsis (e.g. ECHR 2002-...). If the decision is not being published or you do not know if it is to be published replace the ECHR reference by the date of the decision.
[Note4]Summarise the complaints without necessarily citing the invoked Convention Articles.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy