POLOVKA proti Slovensku

FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 41783/98
by František POLOVKA
against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 May 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr M. Pellonpää,
Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo,
Mr J. Makarczyk,
Mrs V. Strážnická,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr S. Pavlovschi, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 9 April 1998 and registered on 19 June 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 regard to the partial decision of 11 January 2000,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr František Polovka, is a Slovakian national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Svit. The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. Vršanský, their Agent.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 19 March 1993 the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal from a job and claimed compensation before the Poprad District Court (Okresný súd).

The District Court held hearings on 2, 13 and 15 April 1993.

On 15 April 1993 the District Court suspended the proceedings. The decision stated that on 5 February 1993 the applicant had been accused of an offence and that the criminal court’s decision was relevant when determining the applicant’s above civil action.

On 3 May 1993 the applicant appealed against the decision to suspend the proceedings. On 10 May 1993 he submitted reasons for the appeal. On 31 May 1993 the case file was submitted to the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) for a decision on the applicant’s appeal. On 24 August 1993 the Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court. The Regional Court qualified the applicant’s submissions as a procedural motion and held that it was to be decided upon by the District Court.

On 27 August 1993 the Poprad District Court invited the applicant to submit further information as regards his submission of 3 May 1993. The applicant did not reply and on 29 November 1993 the District Court again submitted the case file to the Košice Regional Court for a decision on the applicant’s appeal.

On 6 December 1993 and on 18 April 1994 the applicant requested the District Court that the proceedings concerning his action be resumed and that a hearing be scheduled.

On 23 September 1994 the Košice Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court and instructed the latter to decide on the applicant’s request.

On 10 October 1994 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 16 November 1994. On 2 November 1994 the applicant requested that the case be adjourned until the delivery of a decision on his petition for a complaint in the interest in the law to be lodged on his behalf in the criminal proceedings. The District Court granted the applicant’s request.

On 9 January 1995, 2 June 1995, 2 October 1995 and on 4 January 1996 the Poprad District Court inquired whether a decision had been delivered on the above extraordinary remedy in the criminal proceedings. On 20 January 1995, 12 June 1995, 5 October 1995 and on 11 January 1996 respectively the applicant replied that the Ministry of Justice had not yet decided on his petition.

On 5 March 1996 the criminal file concerning the applicant’s case was returned to the Poprad District Court.

On 2 April 1996 the applicant requested the District Court to take further evidence.

On 17 April 1996 the Poprad District Court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed on 27 May 1996. On 4 June 1996 he submitted further reasons for the appeal. At the end of his submission the applicant stated that he also complained to the president of the Poprad District Court about delays in the proceedings.

On 12 June 1996 the applicant paid the court fees in respect of the appellate proceedings. On 19 June 1996 the defendant company submitted its observations on the appeal. On 28 June 1996 the case file was submitted to the Košice Regional Court.

On 14 October 1997 the applicant was summoned to appear at a hearing before the Košice Regional Court scheduled for 31 October 1997. On the latter date the applicant and his lawyer were informed that the hearing had been held in the absence of the parties and that the appeal had been dismissed on 21 October 1997. The Regional Court’s judgment was served on 2 February 1998.

On the same day the applicant complained to the president of the Košice Regional Court that the proceedings had lasted unreasonably long and that he had not been heard by the appellate court. In a letter of 31 March 1998 the president of the Košice Regional Court admitted that the applicant’s complaint was partially justified and explained that the delay between 18 June 1996 and 21 October 1997 was due to the heavy workload of the Regional Court judges. The letter further stated that the applicant had not been summoned to the hearing held on 21 October 1997 due to an administrative mistake.

In the meantime, on 16 February 1998, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd). On 18 February 1998 a judge of the Supreme Court sent the appeal on points of law to the Poprad District Court for further procedural action to be taken in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On 25 February 1998 the appeal on points of law was sent to the defendant company for comments. On 25 March 1998 the case file was submitted to the Supreme Court. On 26 May 1998 the latter quashed the appellate court’s judgment on the ground that the applicant had not been duly summoned to the hearing of 21 October 1997. The case file was returned to the Regional Court on 15 June 1998.

On 17 August 1998 and on 25 October 1999 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court that his case was not being proceeded with as a result of which his constitutional right to a judicial protection of his rights had been violated.

A hearing before the Regional Court was scheduled for 23 November 1999. On 22 November 1999 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Regional Court that he no longer represented the applicant. As the applicant had not been notified in person of the hearing, the case was adjourned. Another hearing scheduled for 14 December 1999 had to be adjourned as the applicant was ill.

On 15 February 2000 the Košice Regional Court upheld the Poprad District Court’s judgment of 17 April 1996.

On 30 March 2000 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court. On 19 April 2000 the latter sent the appeal on points of law to the Poprad District Court for further action. On 28 April 2000 the District Court requested the applicant to submit a copy of his appeal on points of law. The applicant was further invited to appoint a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings within fifteen days. The applicant did not reply. The case file was submitted to the Supreme Court on 7 June 2000.

On 27 June 2000 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had failed to comply with the formal requirements.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

According to Section 17 § 1 of the State Administration of Courts Act (Zákon o sídlach a obvodoch súdov Slovenskej republiky, štátnej správe súdov, vybavovaní sťažností a o voľbách prísediacich) No. 80/1992, any natural person or corporation can turn to State authorities responsible for the administration of courts (the Ministry of Justice, the President and Vice-President of the Supreme Court and the Presidents and Vice-Presidents of Regional and District Courts) with complaints in cases of delayed proceedings or misconduct caused by improper performance of and/or undignified interference with the proceedings by officers of the court.

Pursuant to Article 130 (3) of the Constitution, as in force until 30 June 2001, the Constitutional Court could commence proceedings upon the petition (“podnet”) presented by any individual or a corporation claiming that their rights had been violated.

According to its case-law relating to proceedings under Article 130 (3) of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court lacked jurisdiction to draw legal consequences from a violation of a petitioner’s constitutional right to a hearing without delays. It could neither grant damages to the person concerned nor impose a sanction on the public authority liable for the violation found. The Constitutional Court considered that it was therefore for the authority concerned to provide redress to the person whose constitutional rights were violated.

On 1 July 2001 Article 130 (3) of the Constitution was annulled. A new remedy before the Constitutional Court has been introduced by an amendment which entered into force on 1 January 2002.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning his case lasted unreasonably long.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings which were started on 19 March 1993 and ended by the delivery of the Supreme Court’s decision of 27 June 2000. They therefore lasted seven years, three months and eight days.

The Government first object that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies as he neither lodged a formal complaint about delays in the proceedings to the authorities responsible for the State administration of courts nor did he file a petition pursuant to Article 130 (3) of the Constitution, as in force until 30 June 2001. In the alternative that the Court should consider the applicant’s above submission of 4 June 1996 as a complaint about delays in the proceedings, the Government argue that the application was submitted after the expiry of the six months’ period laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

The applicant disagrees.

The Court has found earlier that a petition pursuant to Article 130 (3) of the Constitution, as in force until 30 June 2001, did not need to be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in cases concerning delays in proceedings (see Bánošová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 38798/97, 27 April 2000 and Stančiak v. Slovakia (dec.) no. 40345/98, 31 August 2000, both unreported), and it finds no reason for reaching a different decision in the present case.

As regards the administrative remedy referred to by the Government, i.e. the complaint under Section 17 § 1 of the State Administration of Courts Act No. 80/1992, the Court observes that the applicant pursued this remedy in substance in his respective submissions to the Poprad District Court of 4 June 1996, to the president of the Košice Regional Court of 2 Feburary 1988 and in his submission to the Supreme Court of 25 October 1999. The Court is not required to determine whether such a complaint is an effective remedy, as the Government’s objection is based on an incorrect factual premise. Accordingly, the application cannot be rejected for the applicant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

The application concerns delays in proceedings which were pending when the application was introduced on 9 April 1998, i.e. it relates to the length of a continuing situation which cannot be considered to be the result of a particular decision or event. Accordingly, the application cannot be rejected for non-observance of the six month rule (see Gama da Costa v. Portugal, application no. 12659/87, Commission decision of 5 March 1990, Decisions and Reports 65, p. 136).

As to the merits, the Government admit that there were certain delays in the proceedings imputable to domestic courts. They further submit that the overall length of the proceedings is also due to the fact that the applicant did not respond to the Poprad District Court’s request for further information of 27 August 1993 and that the case was adjourned, at the applicant’s request, between 30 October 1994 and 11 January 1996 pending the decision of the Ministry of Justice on the applicant’s request for a complaint in the interest of the law to be lodged on his behalf in the criminal proceedings against him.

The applicant contends that the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

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 remainder of the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President