CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 29 juin 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sCC843BA8 { width:25.33pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .sC2250E92 { width:36.56pt; display:inline-block } .s2348ECBC { width:232.5pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .sD49C56F { width:262.16pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } SECOND SECTION   PARTIAL DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 41375/98 by Michal KOVÁČ against the Slovak Republic     The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 June 2000 as a   Chamber composed of:     Mr   C.L. Rozakis, President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka,   Mr   B. Conforti,   Mr   G. Bonello,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,   Mr   E. Levits,   Mr   A. Kovler, judges ,   Mr   E. Fribergh, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of   Human Rights on 26 February 1998 and registered on 5 May 1998,     Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant is a Slovak national, born in 1951 and living in Humenné.   A.   The circumstances of the case     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.   Proceedings concerning the termination of the applicant’s services as a trade union representative     The applicant was elected a representative of the trade union established within the companies Chemlon and Chemes in Humenné. He was remunerated by the trade union. On   1   June 1994 the committee of the trade union terminated the applicant’s services. The applicant considers that this decision was taken in reaction to his critical remarks made during a trade union conference. The committee’s decision was served on 6 June 1994.     On 11 July 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Humenné District Court ( Okresný súd ) claiming that the trade union committee had exceeded its powers. On   2   November 1994 the District Court dismissed the action.     On 13 December 1994 the applicant appealed. On 6 July 1995 the Košice Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) quashed the first instance judgment and instructed the District Court to establish the relevant facts.     In March 1995 the applicant was again elected a trade union representative. On 13   November 1995 he extended his action in that he claimed compensation for lost income for the period between 1 July 1994 and 31 March 1995.     On 18 December 1995 the Humenné District Court dismissed the claim concerning the termination of the applicant’s services. The court established that the trade union was an association governed by the Citizens’ Associations Act (see “Relevant domestic law” below) and that the action had been lodged after the expiry of the thirty days’ time-limit laid down in Section 15 (1) of that Act.     On 26 July 1996 the Humenné District Court decided to deal with the applicant’s claim of 13 November 1995 in a separate set of proceedings (see “Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for lost income” below).     On 31 January 1996 the applicant appealed against the judgment of 18 December 1995. He argued that the termination of his services was within the exclusive power of the trade union’s conference.     On 25 October 1996 the Košice Regional Court upheld the judgment of 18 December 1995. The appellate court examined the charter of the trade union and found that the committee had the power to terminate the applicant’s services. The Regional Court held that the committee’s decision of 1 June 1994 was final for the purposes of Section 15 (1) of the Citizens’ Associations Act. The court found unsubstantiated the applicant’s arguments challenging the validity of the charter.     On 2 January 1997 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. He argued that under the relevant provision of the trade union charter only a conference could have terminated his services.     On 14 July 1997 the Supreme Court ( Najvyšší súd ) rejected the appeal on points of law with reference to Articles 218 § 1 (c) and 243b § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As an appeal on points of law was not available in the case, the Supreme Court examined neither the merits of the lower instance’s judgments nor the reasons for the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The decision was served on 4 September 1997.   Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for lost income       Following his re-election as a trade union representative the applicant claimed, on 13   November 1995, compensation for lost income for the period between 1 July 1994 and 31   March 1995.     On 26 July 1996 the Humenné District Court decided to deal with the claim in a separate set of proceedings     On 10 November 1997 the Prešov Regional Court excluded, at the applicant’s instance, the Humenné District Court judge dealing with the case.     On 30 October 1998 the Humenné District Court dismissed the action. On 16   December 1998 the applicant appealed.     On 5 May 1999 the Prešov Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment and returned the case to the District Court.   Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claims for protection of his personality rights     On 8 June 1994 the applicant filed two actions with the Humenné District Court alleging a violation of his right to protection of his good name and reputation in the context of the termination of his services as a trade union representative.     On 2 November 1994 the District Court adjourned the case.     On 29 December 1994 the applicant challenged the District Court judge dealing with the case. On 15 March 1995 the Košice Regional Court dismissed the request.     At a hearing before the District Court held on 24 July 1995 the applicant proposed to settle the case.     On 10 October 1995 the District Court heard the parties.     On 23 October 1996 the District Court granted the applicant’s request for extension of the action against two other defendants.     On 11 November 1996 the applicant requested the exclusion of the District Court judge dealing with the case. On 27 December 1996 the Košice Regional Court dismissed the request.     On 7 May 1997 and on 25 June 1997 the Ministry of Justice admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaints, that there had been undue delays in the proceedings before the Humenné District Court.     On 10 November 1997 the Prešov Regional Court excluded, at the applicant’s instance, the Humenné District Court judge dealing with the case.   B.   Relevant domestic law     Under Section 1 of Act No. 83/1990 on Associations of Citizens ( Zákon o združovaní občanov ), citizens enjoy the freedom of association. The exercise of this freedom is not subjected to the approval by a State body.     Section 3 (3) of Act No. 83/1990 provides that the rights and obligations of an association’s member are governed by the charter of the association.     Pursuant to Section 15 (1) of Act No. 83/1990, a member who considers unlawful or contrary to the charter a decision taken by an association’s body can request, within thirty days after he or she learned about it, its judicial review provided that there is no remedy available under the charter.     Article 218 § 1 (c) in conjunction with Article 243b § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that an appeal on points of law is to be rejected when it concerns a   decision against which such a remedy is not available.   COMPLAINTS     The applicant complains that the dismissal of his claim concerning the termination of his services was arbitrary and that the judges dealing with both the aforesaid claim and the claims for protection of his personality rights lacked independence and impartiality. The applicant further complains about the length of the proceedings concerning his claims for protection of his personality rights and for compensation for lost income. He alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     The applicant alleges a violation of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention in that his office in the trade union was terminated on account of his critical remarks and that he did not obtain redress before the Slovak authorities.   THE LAW   1.   The applicant complains that his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal was not respected. He alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   a)   To the extent that the applicant complains about the length of the proceedings concerning his claims for protection of his personality rights and for compensation for lost income, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of these complaints. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.   b)   The applicant complains that the dismissal of   his claim concerning the termination of his services as a trade union representative was arbitrary and that the judges dealing with this claim lacked independence and impartiality.     The Court notes that the final decision was delivered by the Košice Regional Court on 25 October 1996. As the application was introduced on 26 February 1998, the applicant did not respect the six months’ time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.     Since the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law, its decision of 14 July 1997 cannot be regarded as final within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.     It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.   c)   To the extent that the applicant complains about the lack of independence and impartiality of the judges dealing with his claims for protection of his personality rights, the Court notes that these proceedings are still pending. Accordingly, this complaint is premature.     It follows that this part of the application   is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.   2.   The applicant complains under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention that his services were terminated on account of his critical remarks and that he did not obtain redress before the Slovak authorities.     The Court notes that the domestic courts were not in a position to examine the merits of the action of 11 July 1994 as the applicant had filed it out of time. He has not, therefore, exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Furthermore, the applicant has not respected the six months’ time-limit set out in Article 35 § 1 (see point 1   (b) above).     It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.     For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaints [Note1] about the length of the proceedings concerning his claims for protection of his personality rights and for compensation for lost income;   DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.           Erik Fribergh   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President [Note1]   Summarise the complaints without necessarily citing the invoked Convention Articles.