CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 4 mars 1998

.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. 32689/96                       by Jaroslav KADUBEC                       against the Slovak Republic          The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 4 March 1998, the following members being present:              MM     J.-C. GEUS, President                  M.A. NOWICKI                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs    G.H. THUNE            MM     F. MARTINEZ                  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 14 May 1996 by Jaroslav KADUBEC against the Slovak Republic and registered on 21 August 1996 under file No. 32689/96;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is a Slovak national born in 1943.   He is unemployed and resides in Bratislava.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.        The Bratislava I Labour Office (Úrad práce) registered the applicant as a person looking for work.   By a letter of 15 December 1994 the applicant informed the Labour Office that he was obliged to look after his parents and requested that co-operation between him and the Labour Office be temporarily interrupted.        On 27 December 1994 the Labour Office replied to the applicant that it was not clear from his submissions whether he requested to be struck out of the list of persons looking for work.        In a letter of 30 December 1994 the applicant explained to the Bratislava I Labour Office that he did not wish to be struck out of the latter's register and that he only asked for a temporary interruption of his co-operation with the aforesaid authority.        On 5 January 1995 a memorandum was drawn up, in the applicant's presence, at the Bratislava I Labour Office.   It states that the applicant was informed that under the relevant law he could only request to be struck out of the list of persons looking for work.        On a separate sheet of paper dated 5 January 1995 and attached to the memorandum the applicant asked to be struck out of the list of employment seekers.   The applicant explained in it, with reference to his original request of 15 December 1994, that he could not co-operate with the Labour Office as he had to look after his close relatives.        On 13 January 1995 the Bratislava I Labour Office, with reference to the aforesaid memorandum and the applicant's request attached to it, struck the applicant out of the list of persons looking for work with effect from 6 January 1995.        The applicant appealed.   He challenged exclusively the reasons for the aforesaid decision and requested that the latter should reflect the explanations which he had given earlier to the Labour Office.        On 23 January 1995 the Bratislava I Labour Office quashed its decision of 13 January 1995 and issued a new decision according to which the applicant was struck out of the list of employment seekers as from 23 January 1995.        The applicant appealed and claimed, inter alia, that he should have been struck out of the Labour Office's list with effect from 15 December 1994.        On 2 March 1995 the Bratislava-City Labour Office decided that the applicant was to be considered as having been struck out of the list in question with effect from 6 January 1995.   It noted that the applicant had co-operated with the Bratislava I Labour Office until 5 January 1995 when it had become clear that the co-operation could not continue for both objective reasons and his lack of will in this respect.        The applicant considered that the reference to his alleged lack of will to co-operate with the authorities was defamatory.   He requested that the reasons for the decision of the Bratislava-City Labour Office be modified.        On 2 May 1995 the Bratislava-City Labour Office added to the reasons for its decision of 2 March 1995 a sentence explaining that the applicant's lack of will to co-operate with the labour authorities was motivated by his decision to look after his parents who needed the care of another person.        On 25 May 1995 the applicant sought a judicial review of the decision of the Bratislava-City Labour Office of 2 March 1995. He challenged the latter's finding that he no longer wished to co-operate with the labour authorities and claimed that the decision in question should only have stated that objectively he could not co-operate with the Labour Office as he was looking after his parents.   The applicant also claimed that he should have been struck out of the Bratislava I Labour Office's register as from 15 December 1994.        On 2 October 1995 the Bratislava City Court (Mestsky súd) granted the applicant's request for exemption from court fees and for the appointment of a lawyer.   The court noted that representation by a lawyer was compulsory in the proceedings brought by the applicant.        In a letter of 17 November 1995 the applicant asked the lawyer for a meeting with a view to discussing the presentation of his case.        On 21 November 1995 the lawyer sent the applicant a copy of his letter which he had addressed to the City Court on 3 November 1995. In the letter the lawyer explained that his workload was excessive and requested that the City Court appoint another lawyer to represent the applicant.        On 22 November 1995 the applicant informed the Bratislava City Court that he had not had an opportunity to prepare his case with the lawyer appointed to assist him.   The applicant requested, in case the court considered that the lawyer was entitled to refuse representing him, that another lawyer be appointed.        On 21 March 1996 the applicant complained to the president of the Bratislava City Court's chamber that the court had not proceeded with his case.        On 9 April 1996 the president of the Bratislava City Court informed the applicant that the court had decided on his case on 24 November 1995 and that the judgment had been served on his lawyer on 26 January 1996.   The lawyer transmitted a copy of the judgment to the applicant, at the latter's request, on 23 April 1996.        By the judgment of 24 November 1995 the Bratislava City Court dismissed the applicant's action.   The judgment states that in the proceedings the applicant was represented by the lawyer who had been appointed by the court on 10 October 1995.   The court did not consider it necessary to hold an oral hearing in the case.   It referred to Section 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure according to which courts can deliver a judgment without prior oral hearing in simple cases, especially when there is no doubt that the administrative authority established the facts correctly, and the point at issue is a question of law.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to a fair and public hearing before a tribunal was not respected in the proceedings before the Bratislava City Court.        The applicant further complains that he was deprived of an effective remedy before a national authority and that the way in which the Bratislava City Court dealt with his case was discriminatory.   He alleges a violation of Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.    The applicant complains that his right to a fair and public hearing before a tribunal was not respected in the proceedings before the Bratislava City Court. He alleges a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention which provides, insofar as relevant, as follows:        "1.    In the determination of his civil rights and obligations      ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an      independent and impartial tribunal established by law."      ...        The Commission recalls that under the Convention organs' case- law, for Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) in its "civil" limb to be applicable, there must be a "dispute" (contestation in the French text) over a "right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law.   The "dispute" must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise.   The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question (see, as one of the most recent references, Eur. Court HR, Balmer-Schafroth and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 26 August 1997, Reports 1997-IV, No. 43, para. 32, with further references).   Furthermore, the right in question must be "civil" in its character (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Skärby v. Sweden judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 180- B, p. 37, para. 29).        The Commission notes that in the present case the applicant was struck out of the list of persons looking for work, as from 6 January 1995, at a request to this effect which he had signed on 5 January 1995.   In the proceedings complained of the applicant did not contest this decision as such.   In fact, the applicant challenged the administrative authorities' finding that he no longer wished to co- operate with them.   He claimed that the decision in question should only have stated that he was objectively prevented from co-operating with the labour authorities as he had to look after his parents.   He also claimed that he should have been struck out of the list in question with effect from 15 December 1994 when he had requested for the first time that his co-operation with the labour authorities be temporarily interrupted.        Thus, before the Bratislava City Court the applicant challenged only formal aspects of the decision in question.   The Commission notes that the subject-matter of the applicant's action was not "pecuniary" in nature (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Éditions Périscope v. France judgment of 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-B, p. 66, para. 40).   The Commission also notes that at no stage in the proceedings had the applicant claimed to have suffered any loss for which he intended to seek compensation.   Furthermore, the Commission has before it no information that would indicate that the contested aspects of the administrative decision in question were directly decisive for the determination of any of the applicant's "civil rights".        In these circumstances, the Commission considers that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is not applicable in the present case.        It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.    The applicant further complains that he was deprived of an effective remedy before a national authority and that the way in which the Bratislava City Court dealt with his case was discriminatory.   He alleges a violation of Articles 13 and 14 (Art. 13, 14) of the Convention.        In view of its above finding that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention does not apply in the present case, the Commission reaches the same conclusion with respect to Articles 13 and 14 (Art. 13, 14) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Pierre-Bloch v. France judgment of 21 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI, No. 53, para. 64; Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 17, para. 36).        It follows that this part of the application is also incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.      M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               J.-C. GEUS       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber