CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 15 janvier 1997

.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 }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                           SECOND CHAMBER                      Application No. 26384/95                            Mária SAMKOVÁ                               against                           the Slovak Republic                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 15 January 1997)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1   PART I   : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2   PART II : SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4                            INTRODUCTION   1.    This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Mária Samková against the Slovak Republic on 10 November 1994.   It was registered on 2 February 1995 under file No. 26384/95.   2.    The applicant was represented by Mr. J. Maly, a lawyer practising in Bratislava.   3.    The Government of the Slovak Republic were represented by their Agent, Mr. Robert Fico.   4.    On 26 June 1996 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared the application admissible.   It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:        "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to      it:        a.    it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake      together with the representatives of the parties an examination      of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the      effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all      necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the      Commission;        b.    it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of      the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly      settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights      as defined in this Convention."   5.    The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 15 January 1997 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   6.    The following members were present when the Report was adopted:             Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President           MM.   J.-C. GEUS                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                J.-C. SOYER                H. DANELIUS                F. MARTINEZ                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY                P. LORENZEN                E. BIELIUNAS                E.A. ALKEMA                               PART I                       STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   7.    The applicant is a Slovak national born in 1917.   She is retired and resides in Dolné Vestenice.   8.    In 1961 a plot owned by the applicant and her late husband was expropriated for construction of a zoological garden.   In 1963 they received compensation according to the rules then in force.   9.    In 1991 the applicant claimed restitution.   As the administration of the zoological garden refused to restore the property, the applicant claimed restitution before the Bratislava Land Office pursuant to Section 9 para. 4 of the Land Ownership Act.   10.   On 7 April 1992 the Land Office held an examination of the area. Its aim was to determine whether the land served the purpose for which it had been initially expropriated.   The applicant attended the examination together with some 15 other claimants.   The record drawn up after the examination does not contain any reference to the plot claimed by the applicant and to the comments she made in the course of the examination.   11.   On 31 January 1994 the Land Office dismissed the applicant's claim.   It found, with reference to information submitted by the administration of the zoological garden and to the letter of the City Council of 25 January 1994, that since animals owned by the zoological garden were kept on the plot, it was used for the purpose for which it had been expropriated.   Therefore, it could not be restored pursuant to Section 6 para. 1 (m) of the Land Ownership Act.   12.   On 8 March 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal to the Bratislava City Court.   She alleged that pursuant to Section 6 para. 1 (m) and (r) of the Land Ownership Act she was entitled to restitution of the land as the expropriation had not respected human rights since it had aimed at the liquidation of private property. She further alleged that no animals had been kept on the plot at issue during the relevant period (i.e. between 1961 and 1 January 1990).   She maintained that animals could be kept on the plot only if the original construction plans had been carried out, which was not the case.   The applicant concluded that her former plot had never served the purpose for which it had been expropriated.   She proposed to hear witnesses including the participants in the examination which had taken place on 7 April 1992. The applicant expressly requested the court to hold an oral hearing.   13.   Before submitting the applicant's appeal to the City Court, the Land Office ordered a second examination of the site which was connected with an oral hearing pursuant to Section 21 of the Administrative Proceedings Act.   It took place on 24 March 1994.   14.   According to the record there were still some fruit trees on the plot originally owned by the applicant.   The representative of the zoological garden disagreed with the proposal to restore the plot and stated that animals would be kept again on it later that year.   The Land Office concluded that the property at issue could not be restored. The applicant attended the examination but the record contains no note of whether she made any statements.   15.   On 11 May 1994 the Bratislava City Court upheld the Land Office's decision of 31 January 1994.   The court held that the plot was part of the zoological garden's area and therefore served the general purpose of the 1961 expropriation, i.e. the construction of a zoological garden.   In the court's view it was irrelevant whether or not animals were kept on the plot since it served the needs of the zoo as a whole, e.g. for aesthetic and functional purposes.   16.   The City Court found that since compensation had been paid to the former owners, the expropriation could not be regarded as lacking respect for human rights.   With reference to Section 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure it considered that no hearing was necessary in the applicant's case.   17.   The applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court in which she alleged that the proceedings before the Bratislava City Court had been unfair.   On 29 September 1994 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.   18.   Before the Commission, the applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in the proceedings before the Bratislava Land Office and the Bratislava City Court in that (i) the decisions had been based exclusively on the arguments presented by the defendant, (ii) the court had reached an unfair decision because of erroneous interpretation of the law, (iii) the court had refused to hear witnesses and failed to establish the facts of the case, and (iv) there had been no public hearing in her case.                               PART II                          SOLUTION REACHED   19.   Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission (Second Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   20.   In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   21.   By letter of 23 August 1996 the Government notified the Commission that their proposals for a friendly settlement made to the applicant on 21 August 1996 had been accepted by her.   The agreement about friendly settlement, signed by both parties, reads as follows:   [Translation]        "... the Government of the Slovak Republic shall provide the      necessary legal conditions for an oral hearing of the applicant's      claim so that all guarantees laid down by Article 6 para. 1 of      the Convention are respected.   For this purpose:        a)    the applicant shall file a re-trial petition with the      Bratislava II District Office (hereinafter the District Office)      for new proceedings;        b)    the District Office shall consider the decision of the      Commission of 26 June 1996 on the admissibility of the      application to be a new fact of considerable importance      justifying the commencement of new proceedings in the restitution      claim which has already been finally decided;        c)    following the approval to commence the new proceedings the      District Office shall be ready to consider the applicant's claim      by conducting an oral hearing and examination of the site within      the intentions of this agreement, the merits of the application      and the reasons of the decision of the Commission on the      admissibility of the application;        d)    should the applicant's case be unsuccessful at the oral      hearing before the District Office, the Bratislava City Court      shall be ready to decide on the appeal at an oral hearing in      conformity with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 of the      Convention and within the intentions of this agreement, the      merits of the application and reasons of the decision of the      Commission on the admissibility of the application.        This Agreement shall not be interpreted as any admission by the      Government of the Slovak Republic of any violation of the      Convention.        The Government of the Slovak Republic, shall, in an adequate      manner, draw the attention of the national judicial authorities      to the urgent need of the respect for the   requirements contained      in Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention when applying the      provisions of Section 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure."   22.   At its session on 15 January 1997, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   23.   For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.           M.-T. SCHOEPFER                         G.H. THUNE            Secretary                             President       to the Second Chamber                of the Second Chamber