European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Frantisek SUPIN v Slovakia - 44312/0 [2011] ECHR 2072 (22 November 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2072.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 2072

[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