CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 3 décembre 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 }                          Application No. 30903/96                       by Mária POLÁKOVÁ and Daniela MACHOVÁ                       against the Slovak Republic          The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 3 December 1997, the following members being present:              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                  A. ARABADJIEV              Ms     M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber          Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 16 January 1996 by Mária POLÁKOVÁ and Daniela MACHOVÁ against the Slovak Republic and registered on 1 April 1996 under file No. 30903/96;        Having regard to:   -     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of      the Commission;   -     the agreement on a friendly settlement of the matter concluded      between the parties on 3 October 1997;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicants are Slovak nationals, born in 1936 and 1957 respectively.   The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant.   They reside in Lozorno and Bratislava respectively.   Before the Commission the applicants are represented by Mr. J. Maly, a lawyer practising in Bratislava.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.        In 1973 a plot owned by the first applicant's late husband was expropriated. In 1992 the applicants claimed its restitution pursuant to Section 6 para. 1 (m) of the Land Ownership Act.   As the Dúbravka District Office (Miestny úrad) refused to restore the land, the applicants' claim was examined by the Bratislava Land Office (Pozemkovy úrad - "the Land Office") pursuant to Section 9 para. 4 of the Land Ownership Act.        On 12 December 1994, after an examination of the area, the Land Office granted the applicants' claim. The Land Office found that the land claimed by the applicants had not been used for housing construction and that there were only pathways and remainders of old trees on it.   The decision stated that the applicants should be entered in the land registry as owners of the land at issue.        The Dúbravka District Office lodged an appeal with the Bratislava City Court (Mestsky súd).   The District Office claimed that the plot was used as a park and that there was a water pipeline underneath a part of it.        On 8 February 1995 the Bratislava City Court quashed the decision of the Land Office of 12 December 1994.   The court established that the land at issue had been expropriated in 1973 for the purpose of using it as part of a building site while constructing blocks of flats in that area.   The court held that a building site had been indispensable for the construction and considered it irrelevant whether or not the land served the purpose of its expropriation after the construction had been accomplished. The court concluded that the applicants' claim did not fall under Section 6 para. 1 (m) of the Land Ownership Act.        The City Court further held, with reference to Sections 250(f) and 250(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, that no hearing was necessary in the case and that its above legal opinion on the case was binding for the Land Office.        On 22 May 1995 the Land Office dismissed the applicants' claim with reference to the Bratislava City Court's judgment of 8 February 1995.   On 22 June 1995 the applicants lodged an appeal.   They submitted further documentary evidence including statements of witnesses and claimed that the land had never been a part of the building site.   The applicants expressed their opinion that the City Court had not established the facts correctly because it had not examined the case at an oral hearing.        On 26 July 1995 the same chamber of the Bratislava City Court which had delivered the judgment of 8 February 1995 upheld the Land Office's decision of 22 May 1995.   The City Court reiterated the reasons for its judgment of 8 February 1995 and concluded that the applicants were not entitled to claim its restitution under Section 6para. 1 (m) of the Land Ownership Act.   With reference to Section 250(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure the court held that no hearing was necessary in the applicants' case.        The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Najvyssí súd).   On 10 October 1995 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.   COMPLAINTS        The applicants alleged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in that the Bratislava City Court, when deciding on their appeal of 22 June 1995, (i) had not taken into consideration their written submissions and had failed to establish the facts correctly, (ii) had not held an oral hearing, and (iii) had lacked impartiality as the same judges had delivered the judgment of 8 February 1995 in their case.        The applicants further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that their right to an effective remedy had been violated in that the same judges had delivered both the judgment of 8 February and the judgment of 26 July 1995.        Finally, the applicants complained about expropriation of their family's land and about the refusal to restore it. They alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 16 January 1996 and registered on 1 April 1996.        On 2 July 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.        On 3 October 1997 the parties signed an agreement regarding the terms of a friendly settlement of the case.   The agreement provides, inter alia, as follows:   [Translation]        "... the Government of the Slovak Republic shall provide the      necessary legal conditions for an oral hearing of the applicants'      claim so that all guarantees laid down by Article 6 para. 1 of      the Convention are respected.   For this purpose:        a)     the applicants shall file a petition with the Bratislava IV      District Office (hereinafter the District Office) for new      proceedings to be brought in their case;        b)     the District Office shall re-open the proceedings      concerning the applicants' claim for restitution ...;        c)     should the applicants be unsuccessful in the proceedings      before the District Office and should they subsequently seek a      judicial review of the District Office's decision, the Bratislava      Regional Court (formerly the Bratislava City Court) ... shall be      ready to decide on the applicants' action at an oral hearing in      conformity with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 of the      Convention."            In an accompanying letter dated 3 October 1997 the parties stated that they were aware that in consequence of the above agreement the Commission may decide to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 30 of the Convention.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION        In view of the agreement between the parties of 3 October 1997, the Commission notes that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention.        The Commission finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require examination of the application to be continued, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.      M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               G.H. THUNE       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber