CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 décembre 1992

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 21026/92                       by Ján MACOSKO                       against Czechoslovakia           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 December 1992, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  S. TRECHSEL                  F. ERMACORA                  G. SPERDUTI                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G. H. THUNE            Sir    Basil HALL            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                    Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 11 May 1992 by Ján Macosko against Czechoslovakia and registered on 3 December 1992 under file No. 21026/92;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:       The applicant, a citizen of the CSFR born in 1946, is a pensioner residing at Kosice.         In 1975 the applicant, who was then employed in steel works, participated in a football match organised by a trade union.   During the match the applicant was injured.   He became an invalid and received certain daily allowances and an invalidity pension.   He attempted to obtain compensation for the injury on the ground that it had constituted an industrial accident, but on 22 June 1979 the Public Prosecutor of the Slovak Republic dismissed this request.         In 1991 the applicant discovered a document of the proceedings terminated on 22 June 1979 which he believed had been falsified.   His attempt to introduce criminal proceedings in particular against the judge concerned was refused on 18 February 1992 by the Public Prosecutor.   The applicant then filed a request for the reopening of the previous proceedings with the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud). The Court dismissed the applicant's request on 2 July 1992.         The applicant complains of the unfairness of the proceedings before the Public Prosecutor and the Constitutional Court.   He also complains that the funds he has received do not permit him to found a family.   Finally he alleges that he cannot effectively complain about the refusal of compensation.   The applicant does not invoke any provisions of the Convention.         The Commission has examined these complaints under Articles 6, 12 and 13 of the Convention, respectively.         Insofar as the applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the unfairness of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, and under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy at his disposal, the Commission considers that these proceedings concerned either the introduction of criminal proceedings against third persons or the reopening of previous proceedings.   However, such proceedings do not involve the determination of a civil right or a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention (see No. 7761/77, Dec. 8.5.78, D.R. 14 p. 171).   The Convention not guaranteeing a right to introduce criminal proceedings against third persons or the reopening of proceedings, Article 13 of the Convention is also not applicable.   In this respect the application must be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention in application of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.         Insofar as the applicant complains under Article 12 of the Convention that he could not found a family for lack of funds, and even assuming that the applicant has complied with the requirements under Article 26 of the Convention as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission finds that no issue arises under this provision.   It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission unanimously         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission          (H.C. Krüger)                          (C.A. Nørgaard)