[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
44312/05
František ŠUPÍN
against
Slovakia
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting
on 22 November 2011 as a Committee
composed of:
Ineta Ziemele, President,
Ján
Šikuta,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and
Marialena Tsirli,
Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 1 December 2005,
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 Šupín, is
a Slovak national who was born in 1929 and lives in Banská
Bystrica. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the
Government”) are represented by their
Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
- On
26 February 1998 the applicant filed a petition with the Banská
Bystrica District Court challenging the termination of his employment
in 1965.
- On
21 December 2004, following an appeal by the applicant, the Banská
Bystrica Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision to
discontinue the proceedings on the grounds that the termination of
the applicant’s employment had already been judicially examined
in a judgment that had became final and binding on 10 September 1966
and that the ordinary courts had no jurisdiction to re-examine the
matter.
- On
5 October 2005 the Constitutional Court allowed a complaint by the
applicant under Article 127 of the Constitution by finding that, in
the proceedings opened following his petition of 26 February 1998,
the first instance court had violated the applicant’s
right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing
without unjustified delay. Nevertheless, no just satisfaction in
respect of non-pecuniary damage was awarded.
COMPLAINTS
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 §
1 of the Convention (i) that the outcome of the proceedings in
1966 had been unlawful; (ii) that the decision to discontinue
the proceedings in 2004 had been arbitrary; (iii) that he had
not been heard by the Constitutional Court; and (iv) that the
proceedings concerning his petition of 1998 had lasted too long.
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained that the proceedings leading up to the judgment
of 1966 and the decision of 2004, as well as the subsequent
proceedings before the Constitutional Court, were incompatible with
his rights protected under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the
relevant part of which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing
within a reasonable time ...”
- As regards the proceedings which ended in 1966, the
Court reiterates that, in principle, it can only examine facts which
occurred after the entry into force of the Convention with respect to
the Contracting Party concerned (see the summary of the relevant
principles in Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00,
§§ 70-92, ECHR 2006-III and Šilih v. Slovenia
[GC], no. 71463/01, §§ 140-167, 9 April 2009). The
Court notes that the judgment concerning the termination of the
applicant’s employment became final and binding on 10 September
1966. Since the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, to which
Slovakia is one of the successor States, ratified the Convention on
18 March 1992, the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis
to examine the applicant’s complaint related to those
proceedings.
- As
to the proceedings leading up to the decision of 21 December 2004,
the Government pointed out that the proceedings had been discontinued
by a procedural decision which had not had any direct impact on the
applicant’s civil rights and obligations. Thus, Article 6 §
1 of the Convention was not applicable to the present case.
- In
reply, the applicant disagreed and reiterated that his dismissal had
been null and void and that the courts’ decisions had been
unlawful.
- The
Court notes that the proceedings in issue concerned the applicant’s
petition of 26 February 1998 which was essentially aimed at having
the proceedings of the 1960s reopened and the issue of his dismissal
re examined.
- For that matter the Court reiterates first of all that
neither Article 6 nor any other provision of the Convention or
its Protocols can be interpreted as guaranteeing the right to have a
case re-opened as such (see, among may other authorities, Miliani
v. France, no. 32916/96, Commission decision of 2 July 1997,
Decisions and Reports (DR) 90-B, p. 161; Gorizdra v. Moldova
(dec.), no. 53180/99, 2 July 2002; and Güzel v. Turkey
(dec.), no. 54479/00, 10 June 2003) and that the guarantees of
Article 6 of the Convention do not apply to proceedings in which the
re-opening of proceedings terminated by a final decision is sought
(see, among many other authorities, Rudan v. Croatia
(dec.), no. 45943/99, 13 September 2001; Wierciszewska v. Poland,
no. 41431/98, § 35, 25 November 2003; and Maksym v.
Poland (dec.), no. 14450/02, 9 May 2006). Therefore, the
proceedings in issue fall outside the scope of Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention.
- As
to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the Court
observes that, in so far as substantiated, the subject-matter of
these proceedings was the applicant’s constitutional complaint
against the length of the proceedings before the ordinary courts
which themselves did not fall ratione materiae within the
scope of Article 6 of the Convention.
- The
outcome of the constitutional proceedings therefore cannot be said to
have been directly decisive for the applicant’s “civil
rights and obligations” (see Süßmann v. Germany,
Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1171, § 41;
Mikolaj and Mikolajová v. Slovakia, no. 68561/01, §
36, 29 November 2005; and Bohucký v. Slovakia, no.
16988/02, § 25, 23 October 2007). The constitutional proceedings
therefore likewise fall outside the scope of Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention ratione materiae.
- It
follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with
Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Marialena Tsirli Ineta Ziemele
Deputy
Registrar President
