CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 mai 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s10F9E4BE { width:199.47pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 51559/99 by Ladislav JAMRIŠKA against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18   June 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 January 1999 and registered on 5 October 1999, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Ladislav Jamriška, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Partizánske. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant proposed two technological improvements to the company in which he worked. They were not accepted. On 21 November 1989 the applicant filed an action with the Topoľčany District Court. He claimed the protection of his intellectual property in that his above proposals were not accepted. On 7 February 1990 the applicant amended his action in that he claimed that one of the technological improvements proposed by him was submitted prior to other proposals concerning the same issue submitted by other persons, and that he should be compensated for both improvements proposed by him. On 21 January 1991 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. On 20 March 1991 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed this decision and instructed the first instance court to take further evidence. On 30 September 1991 the appellate court dismissed the applicant’s request for the exclusion of the District Court judge. The case file was returned to the District Court on 13 November 1991. On 5 December 1991 an expert was appointed. On 26 April 1992 the expert informed the District Court that he had a heavy workload and that he would be able to submit the opinion only after 21 April 1992. In 1993 the case was assigned to a different judge. On 25 January 1995 the Topoľčany District Court delivered an interim judgment in which it found, with reference to two expert opinions, that the applicant’s proposal concerning the circulation of air in the defendant company was to be given priority. The District Court further dismissed the claim for compensation concerning the applicant’s second proposal. It noted that the solution proposed by the applicant was not genuine and concluded, with reference to the relevant law, that he was not entitled to compensation therefor. The defendant appealed, and on 13 July 1995 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment to the extent that it had allowed the applicant’s claim for his proposal to be given priority. Subsequently, the District Court heard the experts with a view to clarifying the differences in their conclusions. It also obtained a third opinion. On 19 January 1996 the District Court delivered a decision by which it granted the third expert’s claim for fees. The applicant challenged the decision on the ground that the opinion was erroneous. On 28 October 1996 the Topoľčany District Court dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s action. It found that the applicant claimed that his proposal should be given priority over two other proposals addressing the same problem. However, those proposals were not identical to the applicant’s, and they had not been accepted and used by the defendant company. The District Court concluded that the applicant had no pressing legal interest in having this claim determined as required by Article 80 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The District Court also found that the applicant’s proposal was not genuine and did not resolve the technical problem which it addressed. In the District Court’s view, the applicant was therefore not entitled to compensation in this respect. The applicant appealed and claimed that the decision was arbitrary. He also challenged the District Court judge on the ground that he had not paid due attention to the applicant’s arguments. On 28 February 1997 the Constitutional Court found that the Topoľčany District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delay. In its finding the Constitutional Court admitted that the case was complex from the legal point of view. It found no particular delays in the proceedings which should be imputed to the applicant and held that the District Court had failed to proceed with the case in an effective manner as required by the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decision stated, in particular, that there had been shortcomings in the judge’s work which had caused excessive delays in the proceedings. On 20 January 1998 the Nitra Regional Court upheld the District Court’s finding that the applicant was not entitled to compensation for the proposal in question as it was neither genuine nor did it resolve the technical problem in question as required by the relevant law. The Regional Court further discontinued the proceedings as regards the applicant’s claim that his proposal should be given priority as it was outside the courts’ jurisdiction. Finally, the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision on the expert’s fees and decided that the District Court judge involved was not biased. The Regional Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 4   August 1998. On 6 September 1999 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice that the courts dealing with his case had failed to advise him of his procedural rights and duties and that the judges had acted as inquisitors. The applicant also complained of the above facts to the General Prosecutor’s Office. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the dismissal of his above claims and about the length of the proceedings. 2. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the judges dealing with his case disregarded his rights and subjected him to degrading treatment. THE LAW 1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 about unfairness and length of the proceedings concerning his claims. a) To the extent that the applicant complains about the length of the proceedings, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that 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) As to the applicant’s complaint that the above judicial decisions are arbitrary, the Court recalls that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see the García Ruiz v. Spain judgment of 21 January 1999 , Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-I, pp. 98-99, § 28). The Court notes that the domestic courts duly examined the applicant’s claims and finds that their decisions are not arbitrary. Furthermore, there is no indication that the proceedings leading to these decisions were unfair. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. 2. Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains that the judges dealing with his case subjected him to degrading treatment. The Court has examined this complaint but finds, to the extent that it has been substantiated and falls within its competence, that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the applicant’s rights under the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings; Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President