CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 octobre 2004

.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 } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDFC5B1C5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .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 } .s4FFB5796 { width:198.18pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 64033/00 by Igor VRABEC against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5   October 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego, judges , and Mr M. O'Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 September 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Igor Vrabec, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Proceedings relating to the applicant's obligation to repair his house On 22 May 1997 the Bratislava IV District Office ( Okresný úrad ) delivered a decision ordering the applicant to repair a part of his house with a view to preventing water leaking into his neighbour's house. The decision was based on an expert opinion. The applicant appealed. On 25 August 1997 the Bratislava Regional Office ( Krajský úrad ) upheld the administrative decision delivered at first instance. No appeal lay against the appellate authority's decision. The above decision thus became final and enforceable. On 28 October 1997 the applicant filed an action under Article 247 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the Bratislava Regional Court seeking a review of the administrative decisions delivered in his case. As the applicant did not comply with the decision of 22 May 1997, the Bratislava IV District Office started, on 28 November 1997, proceedings with a view to having its above decision executed. On 15 December 1997 the applicant filed an objection to the notification. On 16 December 1997 the executions officer formally informed the applicant that the decision would be executed by carrying out the work in question. On 17 December 1997 the applicant objected to the execution and its costs. On 21 January 1999 the Bratislava IV District Court dismissed that objection. On 8 February 1999 the applicant asked the Bratislava IV District Court to adjourn the execution pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Bratislava Regional Court relating to his above action of 28 October 1997. On 31 January 2000 the District Court dismissed the request. On 7   March   2000 the applicant appealed. The Bratislava Regional Court upheld that decision on 30 June 2000. In the meantime, on 20 May 1999, the applicant requested the Bratislava Regional Court under Article 250c of the Code of Civil Procedure that the enforceable effect of the District Office's decision be suspended pending the determination of his action of 28 October 1997. The applicant argued that the works were likely to cause him considerable harm. On 13 July 1999 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the applicant's action. The Regional Court found that the District Office had proceeded in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constructions Act. The facts of the case had been sufficiently established and there was no appearance of unlawfulness in the proceedings leading to the administrative decision in issue. Prior to the service of the Regional Court's judgment on 6   October 1999 the executions officer arranged, on 25 August 1999, for the works covered by the above administrative decision to be carried out by a company. 2.     Proceedings relating to enforcement of a sum of money On 21 February 2000 the executions officer issued an order with a view to obtaining a sum of money which the applicant owed as a result of the above execution of the Bratislava IV District Office's decision. The payment of the sum owed by the applicant was to be enforced by instalments to be withheld from his salary. On 29 January 2001 the applicant requested the Bratislava IV District Court to discontinue the execution on the ground that it was unlawful. On 21 May 2001 the Bratislava IV District Court adjourned the execution pending its decision on the applicant's request for the execution to be discontinued. On 30 November 2001 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed this decision and returned the case to the District Court. The Regional Court's decision was served on the applicant on 7 May 2002. The proceedings are still pending. B.     Relevant domestic law Pursuant to Article 247(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, courts are entitled to decide in actions against decisions delivered by administrative authorities where such decisions have become final after the exhaustion of all ordinary remedies. Article 250c of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that an action for judicial review of an administrative decision does not suspend the enforceable effect of such a decision unless a special law otherwise provides. The presiding judge can, at a party's request, issue a decision suspending the enforceable effect of the administrative decision in question where its immediate enforcement could result in serious harm.   Section 41(1) of the Execution Order provides that an execution can be based on a judicial decision which grants a right or imposes an obligation on a person or which affects one's property. Paragraph 2 of Section 41 of the Execution Order provides, inter alia , that executions can also be based on other decisions which are enforceable by means of judicial execution under the relevant law. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complained that the execution of the administrative decision against him had been based on an administrative decision and that it had been ordered despite the fact that the Bratislava Regional Court had not yet determined his civil rights and obligations affected by that decision. He also complained that the Bratislava IV District Court had caused undue delays in the proceedings relating to the execution. The applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 2.     Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complained that he had no effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaint under Article 6   § 1 of the Convention relating to the fact that the enforcement had been ordered in the absence of a court's decision on the merits of the case. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complained that his right to a hearing by a tribunal had been violated in the context of the enforcement of the Bratislava IV District Office's decision of 22 May 1997 and that the Bratislava IV District Court had failed to proceed with the case with due diligence. He invoked Article 6   § 1 of the Convention the relevant part of which provides: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” a)     As to the applicant's complaint that the execution of the Bratislava IV District Office's decision was ordered in the absence of a court's decision on the merits of the case, the Court recalls that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal. In this way it embodies the “right to a court”, of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see Hornsby   v. Greece , judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, p. 510, §   40). Under Article 247 et seq. of the Slovakian Code of Civil Procedure, an action for review of an administrative decision which has become final is available to parties to administrative proceedings. In the present case that remedy was used by the applicant as he considered the administrative decision in question to be unlawful. The applicant's right of access to a court was thus respected in that the Bratislava Regional Court reviewed, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the administrative decision imposing civil obligations on him. To the extent that the applicant may be understood as complaining that the principle of legal certainty was infringed in that the domestic law allowed for the administrative decision in issue to become final and enforceable prior to its review by a court, the Court finds that no issue under Article 6 § 1 arises in the particular circumstances of the case since the Bratislava Regional Court rejected the applicant's action and the administrative decision challenged by the applicant thus remained unaffected. In any event, the Court notes that Article 250c of the Code of Civil Procedure entitled the applicant to request the court dealing with the case that the enforceable effect of the administrative decision be suspended pending its judicial review. The applicant filed such a request almost nineteen months after he had lodged his action, at a stage when the Regional Court was about to decide on the case. In these circumstances, the Court finds no appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the fact that execution of the administrative decision against the applicant was ordered prior to a judicial review of that decision. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. b)     The applicant further complained about the length of the execution proceedings before the Bratislava IV District Court. According to the information available to the Court those proceedings are still pending. Since the applicant has not sought redress as regards the alleged excessive length of the proceedings by means of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, as in force since 1 January 2002, he has failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Andrášik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos. 57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01, 60226/00, 22 October 2002). It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 2.     The applicant further complained that he had no effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaint under Article 6 § 1 relating to the fact that the Slovakian authorities had proceeded with the enforcement despite the fact that the merits of the case had not been determined by a court. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention which provides as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” The Court has rejected the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 1 relating to the execution of the administrative decision prior to its judicial review as being manifestly ill-founded. For similar reasons, in this respect the applicant did not have an “arguable claim” and Article 13 is therefore inapplicable to this part of the application (see Boyle and Rice v.   the United Kingdom , judgment of 27   April 1988, Series A No. 131, § 52).             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 Declares the application inadmissible.   Michael O'Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President