British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
LOVECEK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA - 11301/03 [2010] ECHR 2106 (21 December 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2106.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 2106
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF LOVEČEK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
(Application
no. 11301/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21
December 2010
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Loveček and Others v. Slovakia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján
Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša
Vučinić,
Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,
and
Lawrence Early,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 30 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 11301/03) against the
Slovak Republic lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by thirty-three Slovak nationals, whose particulars appear in the
appendix (“the applicants”), on 24 March 2003.
The
applicants were represented by Mr M. Buzinger, a lawyer practising in
Bratislava. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Poláčková,
who was subsequently succeeded in that function by Ms M. Pirošíková.
On
13 April 2006 the
President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice
of the application to the Government. Applying former Article 29 §
3 (currently Article 29 § 1) of the Convention, it decided to
rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same
time.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Background to the case
The
applicants were clients of a private non-banking investment company,
Sun a.s. (“the company”), which was open for investment
by the public.
Under
various types of private-law contracts, the applicants and more than
seven hundred other individuals made financial investments in the
company, which failed to meet its contractual obligations.
In
December 1999 and subsequently, several individuals lodged criminal
complaints against the management of the company about defaults on
payments. In a report of 2 June 2000 the police observed, inter
alia, that the company’s customers were scattered all over
the country, and that a relatively high number of criminal
complaints could be expected in the matter.
On
27 April 2000 a criminal investigation was opened against Š.,
the owner and chief executive officer of the company. However, on 18
May 2000 the decision was quashed on appeal due to formal
shortcomings and lack of evidence.
Numerous
other criminal complaints in the matter were lodged, inter alia,
by the applicants and the Supervisory Board and the Board of
Directors of the company. They finally resulted in criminal
proceedings being taken against Š.
(see below).
On
25 April 2002 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed a petition for
an insolvency order against the company, on the ground that the value
of its estate was not sufficient to cover the costs of the
proceedings.
The
company was consequently wound up and on 14 February 2005 erased from
the Register of Companies, whereby it ceased legally to exist.
B. Applicants’ criminal complaints and further
proceedings
In
the period between 10 April 2000 and 17 June 2002 four applicants
lodged criminal complaints accusing the management of the company of
fraud and embezzlement.
On
16 August 2000 the Bratislava V District Office of Investigation took
a formal decision under Article 160 § 1 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to open criminal proceedings against one or more unknown
persons, on suspicion that they had committed the offence of
embezzlement within the meaning of Article 248 §§ 1 and 5
of the Criminal Code in connection with the management of the
company.
Later
in 2000 the investigators obtained information from the Police
Criminal Forensics Institute, the Police Financial Intelligence Unit,
the tax authorities, the National Property Fund, the Bratislava Stock
Exchange, the National Employment Authority, the Financial Market
Authority and the Slovak Securities Centre.
In
the course of the proceedings the applicants were interviewed by
investigators. They lodged specific quantified claims under Article
43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for damages in the period
between 9 March 2001 and 24 June 2003 (see the appendix).
The
applicants appointed representatives from among themselves to act on
their behalf. In the subsequent period, through their
representatives, they complained on numerous occasions to various
governmental institutions and the media about the course of the
investigation and especially about undue delays.
From
August 2001 to March 2002 the investigators interviewed several
aggrieved parties and witnesses and obtained further information
concerning the company, from a sworn expert, the Police Financial
Intelligence Unit, the tax authorities and the Securities Centre.
On
21 March 2002 the Minister of the Interior ordered the matter to be
investigated by a special team. The team was set up and took up the
investigation on 1 April 2002.
On
2 May 2002 the Bratislava Regional Office of Investigation ruled
that, in view of its scale and importance, that office would be
responsible for the conduct of the investigation.
In
a letter of 9 May 2002 the Bratislava V District Office of Public
Prosecution acknowledged that in the period prior to March 2002 there
had been delays in the investigation.
Between
April and December 2002 the investigators questioned 373 aggrieved
persons, seventeen witnesses, numerous other persons and a sworn
expert, obtained information from private companies, the land
registry authorities, the tax authorities, the Social Security
Administration and the Securities Centre, searched a flat and
non-residential premises and took various steps, including involving
Interpol, with the aim of establishing the whereabouts of Š.,
who was suspected of having gone abroad.
On
27 August 2002 the investigators accused Š.
of embezzlement and other economic offences in connection with the
insolvency of the company.
In
October 2002 the investigator applied for a warrant for the arrest of
the accused and ordered expert evidence to be taken. An expert report
was submitted in January 2003.
On
30 October 2002 the Bratislava V District Court issued an arrest
warrant.
In
November 2002 the investigator ordered further expert evidence to be
taken and obtained information from various sources.
On
5 and 6 February 2003 respectively Š.
was arrested and remanded in custody. On 27 February 2003 the
Bratislava V District Prosecutor dismissed as unfounded his appeal
against the accusations.
Later
in 2003 the investigators interrogated Š.
9 times, heard 278 aggrieved parties and thirty-nine witnesses,
obtained information from several commercial banks, an airline
company, the Securities Centre, the Ministry of Economy and the
Financial Police, cross-examined the accused and a witness and
ordered further expert evidence to be taken. The police carried out a
search of a house and non-residential premises.
On
12 January 2004 the investigation was transferred to the Organised
Crime Unit of the Police Corps.
Later
in 2004 the investigators cross-examined several witnesses and Š.,
ordered an examination by a mental health specialist and
interviewed eighteen aggrieved persons and three witnesses. In
2005 the investigator interviewed Š., two
witnesses and an expert witness and cross-examined Š.
and a witness.
On
19 July 2006 the Supreme Court ruled, on application by the
Prosecutor General, under Article 47 § 3 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, that participation of aggrieved parties in the criminal
proceedings was not admissible. Although this decision had no impact
on the applicants’ standing as aggrieved parties in criminal
proceedings within the meaning of Article 46 § 1 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicants as a result could no longer
exercise their rights as aggrieved parties as stipulated in Article
46 §§ 1 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
Supreme Court noted that there were as many as 707 aggrieved parties,
that they had not appointed a common representative, that their
claims and demands differed in many aspects and that the assertion of
such claims and demands individually in the criminal proceedings
would endanger the main purpose and speedy course of the proceedings.
The Supreme Court observed that, as its ruling had an impact on the
running of the statute of limitations in respect of civil-law claims
for damages, the Prosecutor General was to make it public by
appropriate means. The Supreme Court’s ruling was announced by
the Public Prosecution Service on their official web page on 11
August 2006.
According
to the information available, the criminal proceedings are still
pending.
C. Constitutional proceedings
On
26 June 2002 the applicants lodged a complaint under Article 127
of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court. They complained
that the District Office of Investigation and the District Office of
Prosecution had violated their right to a hearing “without
unjustified delay” (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution)
and “within a reasonable time” (Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention).
On
23 August 2002 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint
inadmissible. It observed that the primary aim of criminal
proceedings was to detect criminal offences and to punish
perpetrators and not to determine aggrieved parties’ claims for
damages. Aggrieved parties’ claims for damages were of a
private-law nature and were predominantly to be asserted before the
civil courts. The possibility of claiming damages in criminal
proceedings was a privilege which did not make the determination of
such claims the central issue of the proceedings and was limited by
the above main aim of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court
concluded that the applicants, being aggrieved parties in the
criminal proceedings, did not enjoy the right to have their claims
for damages determined “without unjustified delay” and
“within a reasonable time”.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 141/1961 Coll.,
as amended, in force until 31 December 2005)
Article
43 §§ 1 and 2 provides, inter alia, that a person
who has suffered pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage as a result of a
criminal offence may claim compensation from the accused and request
the court, when convicting the person charged with a criminal
offence, to order the latter to pay compensation for the damage. The
aggrieved party further has the right to adduce evidence and to
comment on it, to inspect the court file, to take part in the hearing
and to make submissions.
If
there is a large number of aggrieved parties, usually more than one
hundred, and if the exercise by each individual of his rights would
endanger the purpose and speedy course of the proceedings, the
participation of the aggrieved parties in the proceedings shall be
decided upon by a court pursuant to Article 44 §§ 3 and 5.
Articles
47 et seq. provide the opportunity to secure the claim of an
aggrieved party for damages by impounding the accused person’s
property in situations when there is a well-founded suspicion that
the payment of the claim would be hindered or frustrated.
B. Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 301/2005, in
force from 1 January 2006)
Persons
who have suffered damage to their health or property, have suffered
psychological or other damage, or whose legally protected rights or
freedoms have been violated or jeopardised as a result of a criminal
offence, are considered aggrieved parties. They have, inter alia,
the right to claim compensation for the damage they have suffered, to
adduce evidence and to comment on it, to inspect the court file, to
take part in the hearing, to make submissions, and so on. (Article 46
§ 1).
An
aggrieved party who has a lawful claim against an accused person for
compensation in respect of damage resulting from a criminal offence,
has the right to propose that a conviction should include an order
for compensation. The proposal must be made at the latest at the
closure of the investigation and must indicate the ground and scope
of the claim (Article 46 § 3) and can only be made if the claim
has not already been decided upon in civil or other proceedings
(Article 46 § 4).
If
there is a large number of aggrieved parties, usually meaning more
than one hundred, and if the exercise by each individual of his or
her rights would endanger the purpose and speedy course of the
proceedings, the participation of the aggrieved parties in the
proceedings shall be decided upon by a court, following an
application by the Prosecutor General, pursuant to Article 47 §§
3 and 4.
Articles
50 et seq. provide for the possibility of securing the claim of an
aggrieved party for damages in situations when there is a
well-founded suspicion that the payment of the claim would be
hindered or frustrated.
Pursuant
to Article 287 § 1, where a court convicts a person charged with
an offence which has caused damage to third persons under Article 46
§ 1, it shall, as a rule, order him or her to compensate such
damage, provided that the claim has been filed correctly and in due
time.
Under
Article 288 § 1, a court shall refer a person claiming damages
to a civil court (or to another authority) when the evidence
available is not sufficient to determine that claim or where the
taking of further evidence exceeding the scope of the criminal case
is required and the criminal proceedings would thereby be unduly
prolonged.
C. Code of Civil Procedure
Under
Article 83, where proceedings have commenced in a specific matter,
the matter cannot be made the subject of other judicial proceedings.
If
a claim for damages is duly lodged in criminal proceedings, it is
considered a litis pendens from the point of view of Article
83 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Collection of Judicial Decisions
and Standpoints of the Supreme Court, No. 22/1979).
D. Civil Code
Under
Article 112, if creditors make and duly pursue a claim in respect of
their rights before a court or another authority, the statute of
limitations is stayed from the day the claim is made.
This
includes the submission of a civil-party claim for damages in
criminal proceedings (see, for example, Collection of Judicial
Decisions and Standpoints nos. 131/1974 and 29/1985) from the moment
when a criminal complaint is lodged (no. III/1967 in Collection of
Judicial Decisions and Standpoints).
E. Constitutional Court Practice
The
Constitutional Court held in its findings (see for example
I. ÚS 157/02;
III. ÚS 183/05; I. ÚS 18/06 and I. ÚS 67/2010)
that an aggrieved party who joined criminal proceedings with a
claim for damages has a right to a hearing “without unjustified
delay” (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution) as such a duly
lodged claim excludes the possibility of having it decided upon in
civil proceedings (Article 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicants complained that the length of the criminal proceedings
which they had joined with their claims for damages had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. Admissibility
The
Government, with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court of 19
July 2006, were of the opinion that the applicants had not benefited
ratione materiae from the procedural guarantees of Article 6 §
1 of the Convention. They argued that from the moment of delivery of
the decision of the Supreme Court, which ruled that participation of
the aggrieved parties in the criminal proceedings was not admissible,
the applicants’ civil claims were totally separated from the
criminal proceedings and that the Supreme Court ruling was not
directly decisive for the applicants’ civil claims. The
Government supported their argument with the wording of paragraphs 40
and 41 of the Court’s judgment delivered in the case of Krumpel
and Krumpelová v. Slovakia (no. 56195/00, 5 July 2005).
The
Government further argued that, even assuming that Article 6 § 1
of the Convention was applicable, the complaint was manifestly
ill-founded, as the length of the proceedings was reasonable in view
of all the circumstances and, in particular, the factual and
procedural complexity of the matter. As to the complexity of the
case, the Government pointed out that the amount of the alleged
damage was approximately 12,200,000 euros (EUR), complex expert
evidence had been required, the investigated transactions had a
sophisticated corporate background, there were more than 700 victims,
more than eighty witnesses had needed to be heard, and the evidence
was scattered all over the country. Unlike the accused, the
applicants were not responsible for any delays. Although there
admittedly had been some delays imputable to the investigators in
2000 and 2001, they had not been significant and had not recurred
after the setting up of the special investigative team in 2002.
Finally, the Government stated that nothing prevented the applicants
from pursuing their property claims by the usual means before the
ordinary courts.
The
applicants submitted that, in so far as the criminal proceedings
concerned their claims for damages, they enjoyed the guarantees of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicants stated that
the lodging of a criminal complaint was connected with the obligation
of the authorities acting in criminal proceedings to examine it. The
evidence available showed that it had already been clear to the
authorities in early 2000 that they were dealing with a far-reaching
criminal case. However, the authorities had failed to respond
appropriately to the exigencies of the situation. The applicants
further argued that even after the setting up of the special
investigative team there had been several periods of inactivity on
the part of the authorities. The applicants also contended that the
authorities had acted arbitrarily in that they had done nothing to
secure their claims under Article 47 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The applicants submitted that they had decided to claim
their damages in the context of the criminal proceedings as they
believed that they had a better prospect of actually recovering the
compensation than before the civil courts. They argued that once they
opted for this remedy, they were entitled to have their claims
determined within a reasonable time. Lastly, they submitted that the
lengthy proceedings coupled with the eventual exclusion of their
claims from the proceedings had placed them in a deadlock, in that
the debtor company had ceased to exist in the meantime and they could
no longer assert their claims against it.
The
Court observes that injured parties, who lodged their claims for
damages in the context of criminal proceedings, enjoy the guarantees
of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 67-70,
ECHR 2004-I; Krumpel and Krumpelová, cited above,
§§ 39-41, and Bíro
v. Slovakia, no. 57678/00, §§ 44-45, 27 June 2006).
As
far as Slovak cases are concerned, the Court notes that once
a criminal complaint is lodged the Slovak law enforcement
authorities are under a duty to follow it through (see Bíro,
cited above, § 44). Once injured parties opt for claiming
damages in the context of criminal proceedings, they are entitled to
have their claims determined within a reasonable time (see Krumpel
and Krumpelová, cited above, § 48). The Court
further notes that lodging such a claim in the context of criminal
proceedings not only constitutes a litis pendens but also
stays the statute of limitations. It is true that the criminal courts
are, in certain circumstances, entitled to decide whether or not an
injured party should be allowed to participate in criminal
proceedings, and they may refer a party claiming damages to a civil
court. Only once the injured parties’ participation in criminal
proceedings is excluded can they lodge claims for damages with civil
courts, when the statute of limitations starts to run again.
The
Court finds that persons who have correctly lodged a claim for
damages in the context of criminal proceedings are entitled to
benefit from the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
during the period preceding a decision excluding their further
participation in such proceedings as injured parties (ibid., §
40). The injured parties’ civil claims for damages are a
component of the criminal proceedings up to the time of delivery of
such a decision. The Court therefore has jurisdiction ratione
materiae to examine under Article 6 § 1 complaints about
delays which occurred while an applicant’s civil claim was a
component of criminal proceedings, irrespective of any subsequent
decision putting an end to such a situation.
The
Government’s objection relating to applicability of Article 6 §
1 of the Convention must therefore be dismissed.
The
Court considers that the applicants, as aggrieved parties, had the
right to have their claims determined within a reasonable time from
the moment they correctly lodged their claims for damages (see
appendix) in the context of the criminal proceedings in issue (see
Krumpel and Krumpelová, cited above, §§ 39-48)
until 19 July 2006, when the Supreme Court ruled that the
participation of aggrieved parties in those criminal proceedings was
not admissible.
In
view of the above, the period to be taken into consideration lasted
in respect of the individual applicants between three years and over
one month to six years and over three months, during which the
proceedings were at their pre-trial stage. The Court notes that this
complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article
35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not
inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
B. Merits
The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII, or Pfleger v. the Czech Republic, no.
58116/00, § 50, 27 July 2004).
The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Although the length of the criminal proceedings, in the context of
which the applicants’ claims were to be determined, has been
due to the complexity of the case, the Court cannot disregard the
fact that it took over two years and three months to set up a special
investigation unit. Delays in the period prior to March 2002 were
also acknowledged by the Bratislava V District Office of Public
Prosecution. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court
considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was
excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time”
requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
In
their observations of 5 March 2007 in reply to the observations of
the Government on the admissibility and merits of the case, the
applicants raised an additional complaint under Article 13 of the
Convention.
The
Government argued that Article 13 of the Convention was not
applicable in the present case.
The
Court observes that the applicants’ participation in criminal
proceedings came to an end on 19 July 2006 when the Supreme Court
delivered its decision. The prosecution service made this decision
public by announcing it on its official web page on 11 August 2006.
The
complaint under Article 13 of the Convention was introduced on 5
March 2007, that is outside the six-month time-limit laid down in
Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. It
follows that it has been introduced out of time and must be rejected
in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
The
applicants claimed jointly 30,000,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) (the
equivalent of 995,817.60 euros (EUR)) in
respect of non pecuniary damage.
The
Government considered the claim exaggerated.
Ruling
on an equitable basis, and having regard to the number of applicants
(see Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others v. Greece [GC], no.
27278/03, § 29, ECHR 2008 ...), the Court decides to award
the applicants EUR 56,150 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The amount is to be distributed among the applicants as indicated in
the appendix.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicants claimed jointly SKK 251,658 (the equivalent of EUR
8,353.50) for lawyer’s fees incurred before the Constitutional
Court and SKK 353,875.50 (the equivalent of EUR 11,746.60) for
lawyers’ fees incurred before the Court and SKK 1,914 (the
equivalent of EUR 63.50) for administrative expenses.
The
Government contested the amount of these claims and invited the Court
to determine the amount of the award in accordance with its case law.
They had no objection to the sums claimed in respect of
administrative expenses.
According
to the Court’s case-law, the applicants are entitled to
reimbursement of their costs and expenses only in so far as it has
been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and
are reasonable as to quantum. In letters of 3 October 2006 and 25
January 2007 the applicants were requested to submit quantified
claims, together with supporting documents such as the necessary
vouchers (bills of costs). Although the applicants itemised their
claims for lawyers’ fees with reference to Regulation no.
240/1990 Coll. of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic,
which governs remuneration of advocates for the provision of legal
services, they failed to show that they had actually paid, or were
under a contractual obligation to pay, the sums claimed. In the
absence of any documents supporting the applicants’ claims for
lawyers’ fees, the Court makes no award in this respect. On the
other hand, having regard to the documents submitted, it awards the
full sum claimed, namely EUR 63.50 in respect of the administrative
expenses.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months of
the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the
following amounts:
(i)
EUR 56,150 (fifty six thousand one hundred and fifty euros) jointly
to all the applicants (to be distributed according to the appendix),
plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non pecuniary
damage;
(ii)
EUR 63.50 (sixty three euros and fifty cents), plus any tax that may
be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate
equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank
during the default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 December 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President
APPENDIX
|
Name
|
Born
|
Place of residence
|
Date
of claiming damages in the context of the criminal proceedings
|
Just
satisfaction in EUR
|
|
1. Mr
Zdeněk Loveček
|
1934
|
Pezinok
|
20/11/02
|
2,200
jointly
as the applicants are spouses
|
|
2. Ms
Helena Lovečková
|
1940
|
20/11/02
|
|
3. Mr
Ladislav Családi
|
1957
|
Bratislava
|
09/09/02
|
2,300
jointly
as the applicants are spouses
|
|
4. Ms
Veronika Családiová
|
1957
|
24/06/03
|
|
5.
Mr Ján Tomeček
|
1948
|
Bratislava
|
26/07/02
|
2,400
jointly
as the applicants are spouses
|
|
6.
Ms Oľga Tomečková
|
1945
|
30/05/03
|
|
7. Mr
Alojz Krajčovič
|
1937
|
Bratislava
|
18/07/02
|
2,400
jointly
as the applicants are spouses
|
|
8.
Ms Rozália Krajčovičová
|
1940
|
23/06/03
|
|
9.
Mr Ján Čepka
|
1939
|
Plavecký
Štvrtok
|
12/11/02
|
2,200
jointly
as the applicants are spouses
|
|
10.
Ms Viera Čepková
|
1943
|
12/11/02
|
|
11.
Mr Július Meňhart,
succeeded by his wife, applicant no. 12
|
1947
|
Nitra
|
04/02/03
|
2,050
jointly
as the applicants are spouses
|
|
12.
Ms AlZbeta Meňhartová
|
1955
|
04/02/03
|
|
13.
Mr Ladislav Čepílek
|
1954
|
Výčapy-
Opatovce
|
18/11/02
|
2,200
jointly
as the applicants are spouses
|
|
14.
Ms Mária Čeplílková
|
1956
|
18/11/02
|
|
15.
Mr Alojz Čurgali
|
1931
|
Nitra-LuZianky
|
25/04/03
|
1,950
jointly
as the applicants are spouses
|
|
16.
Ms Jozefa Čurgaliová
|
1948
|
25/04/03
|
|
17.
Mr Ľudovít
Gábor
|
1949
|
Šaľa
|
25/04/02
|
2,550
jointly
as the applicants are spouses
|
|
18. Ms
Katarína Gáborová
|
1955
|
04/04/03
|
|
19. Ms
Katarína Gáborová
|
1978
|
Šaľa
|
22/05/03
|
1,900
|
|
20. Mr Ján
Švigár
|
1933
|
Bratislava
|
02/08/02
|
2,400
|
|
21. Mr
Pavel Kováč
|
1952
|
Bratislava
|
18/07/02
|
2,400
|
|
22. Mr
Bohumil Petrík
|
1958
|
Nitra
|
11/11/02
|
2,200
|
|
23.
Mr Vasiľ
Kmiť
|
1931
|
Bratislava
|
26/06/02
|
2,450
|
|
24. Ms
Veronika Gombošová
|
1939
|
Nitra
|
11/11/02
|
2,200
|
|
25.
Mr Dalibor Ječínsky,
represented by Mr Vladimír Ječínsky
|
1926
|
Bratislava
|
18/12/02
|
2,150
|
|
26. Mr
Milan Petrucha
|
1944
|
Bratislava
|
24/07/02
|
2,400
|
|
27. Ms
Júlia Prochádzková
|
1948
|
Bratislava
|
29/07/02
|
2,400
|
|
28. Mr
Dušan Rakytiak
|
1966
|
Bratislava
|
25/07/02
|
2,400
|
|
29. Mr
Branislav Ivan
|
1972
|
Bratislava
|
09/03/01
|
3,200
|
|
30. Mr
Ladislav Rutrle
|
1951
|
Bratislava
|
25/07/02
|
2,400
|
|
31.
Ms
Jana Mikešová
|
1969
|
Bratislava
|
15/05/02
|
2,500
|
|
32. Ms
Zuzana Matulová
|
1963
|
Bratislava
|
27/08/02
|
2,350
|
|
33.
Mr Anton Buben,
succeeded by his son Mr Branislav Buben
|
1950
|
Bratislava
|
02/05/02
|
2,550
|
