CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 octobre 2005

.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 } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s15D92DFC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sFC1B4D41 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAA8DEB86 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s132B84CB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5638B3AF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.15pt; text-align:justify } .s7B0068A0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s700F1260 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7C281E20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sFE576133 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sF741ECC3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEDF764B5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1B9BAE4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2ED81498 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s495E66C1 { width:192.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FOURTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 56161/00 by Ioan Kornelij KOMANICKÝ against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18   October 2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović ,   Mr   J. Šikuta, judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 August 1999, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Ioan Kornelij Komanický, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.1     Proceedings concerning the ownership action of 1993 (the Bardejov District Court file No. 8C 3/93) In 1993 the applicant and his wife brought proceedings before the Bardejov District Court claiming determination of ownership rights in respect of a plot of land. On 18 April 1996 the District Court dismissed the action. The plaintiffs appealed to the Prešov Regional Court. They were summoned to a hearing scheduled for 19 June 1997. On 14 June 1997 the plaintiffs informed the appellate court that they could not attend. On 19 June 1997 the Prešov Regional Court held a hearing in the plaintiffs’ absence and it upheld the first instance judgment. On 20 October 1997 the plaintiffs filed an appeal on points of law against the Prešov Regional Court’s judgment of 19 June 1997. The applicant requested that he should be exempted from the obligation to pay a court fee and that an attorney should be appointed by the court to represent the plaintiffs free of charge. The Bardejov District Court, which dealt with the appeal on points of law prior to its submission to the Supreme Court, invited the plaintiffs to rectify shortcomings in their motion on 26 January 1999. The applicant submits that he and his wife complied with that request. On 23 March 1999 the District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay a court fee. On 21 December 2001 the court rejected the plaintiffs’ request that an attorney should be appointed to represent them free of charge. On 23 April 2004 the District Court reversed its decision of 23 March 1999 and it decided not to exempt the applicant from the obligation to pay a court fee. The applicant appealed and the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision on 30 March 2005. It appears that the proceedings on the appeal on points of law of 20 October 1997 are still pending. 1.2     Constitutional proceedings On 11 February 1999 the applicant filed a motion with the Constitutional Court complaining about the appellate proceedings in the above case. On 27 April 1999 the Constitutional Court invited the applicant to rectify shortcomings in his motion and the applicant responded to this request on 7 May 1999. On 20 May 1999 the Constitutional Court rejected the motion as falling short of the statutory requirements. On 12 February 1999 the applicant filed a petition with the Constitutional Court complaining about undue delays in the proceedings on the appeal on points of law. In a letter of 12 April 1999, a single constitutional judge informed the applicant that his petition could not be dealt with as it clearly did not meet the statutory requirements. On 28 May 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution alleging undue delays in the proceedings on the appeal on points of law. He requested that an attorney should be appointed to represent him free of charge by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court examined the applicant’s financial situation and on 30 June 2004 it dismissed his request as being unjustified with reference to the applicant’s financial situation. On 24 September 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint of 28 May 2004 for the applicant’s failure to meet the statutory requirement of legal representation. 2.1     Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 1995 (the Bardejov District Court file No. 11C 36/96) On 14 December 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bardejov District Court claiming modification of a certificate of employment. On 18 February 1999 the District Court held a hearing. The applicant was not present as he was attending a different hearing held by the Bardejov District Court in a different case. The District Court dismissed the applicant’s above action of 14 December 1995 in his absence. On 18 March 1999 the applicant appealed. The Prešov Regional Court summoned the applicant to a hearing scheduled for 3 December 1999. The hearing was held in the applicant’s absence and the Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment. The applicant submits that he received the summons only on 4 December 1999, and that he was therefore unable to appear at the hearing and to submit his arguments to the court. On 30 January 2000 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law against the Prešov Regional Court’s judgment. He alleged that his right of access to a court had been violated in that the Regional Court had held the hearing in his absence. On 28 January 2002 the Supreme Court granted the appeal on points of law. It quashed the Regional Court’s judgment of 3 December 1999 and returned the case to the appellate court for further consideration. The Prešov Regional Court held a hearing which the applicant attended. On 25 November 2002 it again upheld the District Court’s judgment of 18   February 1999. On 24 January 2003 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law alleging that the Regional Court’s judgment of 25 November 2002 and the District Court’s judgment of 18 February 1999 were arbitrary. He requested that he should be exempted from the obligation to pay a court fee and that an attorney be appointed to represent him free of charge. On 24 September 2003 the Bardejov District Court, which was dealing with the appeal on points of law prior to its submission to the Supreme Court, exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay a court fee. On 6 October 2003 it appointed an attorney to represent the applicant in the proceedings. The attorney objected to her appointment as the applicant’s legal representative. On 22 December 2003 the District Court acceded to the lawyer’s request, and on 31 December 2003 it appointed a different attorney to represent the applicant in the proceedings. The applicant appealed against these decisions. As can be understood from the applicant’s submissions, the proceedings regarding the appeal on points of law of 24 January 2003 are still pending. 2.2     Constitutional proceedings On 11 March 1999 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the Bardejov District Court had held a hearing in his absence on 18   February 1999. In a letter of 12 April 1999, a single constitutional court judge informed the applicant that his motion could not be dealt with as it clearly did not meet the statutory requirements. On 22 April 1999 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about undue delays in the proceedings brought on 14 December 1995. The applicant alleges that the Constitutional Court did not deal with his motion at all. 3.1     Defamation proceedings of 1995 (the Bardejov District Court file No. 8C 145/95) In 1995 the applicant filed a defamation action with the Bardejov District Court. On 22 November 1995 the District Court dismissed the action. The applicant submits that he was notified of the District Court’s judgment on 15 January 1996. He appealed on 29 January 1996. On 24 February 1997 the Košice Regional Court rejected the appeal for having been lodged belatedly. The Regional Court found that the statutory 15 day time-limit for filing the appeal had expired on 22 January 1996. On 25 April 1997 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. He complained that by its conduct the appellate court had prevented him from acting before it and relied on Article 237(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 21 December 1999 the Supreme Court in camera rejected the appeal on points of law as being inadmissible. In its decision the Supreme Court found that there had been no shortcomings within the meaning of Article 237(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure in the appellate proceedings. The applicant has already complained about the above defamation proceedings in his application to the Court no. 64154/00. Invoking Articles 6 § 1, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention, he alleged that the courts’ decisions were arbitrary, that he was denied the right of access to a court and that his right to respect for private life was violated as a result of the dismissal of his action. This application was declared inadmissible by a committee of three judges.           3.2     Proceedings regarding the applicant’s motion of 1997 for reopening of the defamation proceedings (the Bardejov District Court file No. 8C 520/97)   On 25 April 1997 the applicant petitioned the Bardejov District Court for reopening of the defamation proceedings of 1995. On 4 August 1999 the Bardejov District Court dismissed the applicant’s petition. On 30 December 1999 the Prešov Regional Court upheld this decision. On 22 March 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s decision of 30 December 1999. He requested that he should be exempted from the obligation to pay a court fee. On 21   December 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request. The applicant appealed against the decision. On 31 December 2002 the Prešov Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision and returned the case to it for further consideration. On 8 April 2004 the District Court again dismissed the applicant’s request for exemption from the obligation to pay a court fee. On 25 May 2004 the applicant appealed. On 22 December 2004 the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision. The proceedings concerning the applicant’s appeal on points of law of 22 March 2000 are pending. 3.3     Constitutional proceedings On 4 March 1999 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings regarding his appeal on points of law of 25 April 1997. In a letter of 12 April 1999, a constitutional court judge informed the applicant that his motion could not be dealt with as it did not meet the statutory requirements. On 24 May 1999 the applicant turned to the Constitutional Court complaining about undue delays in the proceedings concerning his motion of 25 April 1997 for reopening of the defamation proceedings. In a letter of 7 December 1999, a constitutional court judge informed the applicant that his motion could not be dealt with as it did not meet the statutory requirement of obligatory legal representation. On 5 April 2004 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about undue delays in the proceedings concerning his appeal on points of law of 22 March 2000 relating to the lower courts’ decisions on his request for reopening of the defamation proceedings. On 20 July 2004 the applicant’s attorney was invited to inform the Constitutional Court whether he wished an oral hearing to be held. In his reply of 27 July 2004, the attorney informed the Constitutional Court that an oral hearing was not necessary. On 9 September 2004 the Constitutional Court decided in camera that the applicant’s right to have the case examined without undue delays had not been violated in the proceedings complained of. 4.1     Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for reduction of rent of 1997 (the Bardejov District Court file No. 11C 810/97) On 23 May 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bardejov District Court claiming that the rent which he had to pay for the use of his flat be reduced. The District Court held a hearing on 2 August 1999 at which the defendant failed to appear. The applicant requested that he should be heard on the case. The District Court adjourned the proceedings instead. Both the applicant and the defendant were heard by the court in the further course of the proceedings. On 30 May 2000 the applicant modified his claim to request that the defendant be ordered to pay him back a part of paid rent and the court allowed this modification. On 6 July 2000 the applicant modified his claim again. On 12 December 2000 the District Court did not allow a modification of the applicant’s claim. On 2 October 2001 the District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay 3,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) [1] to the applicant. On 6 December 2001 the applicant appealed against the District Court’s judgment complaining that the court had not granted the modified claim. On 28 February 2002 the Prešov Regional Court rejected the appeal on the ground that the applicant lacked standing to appeal against the judgment by which his claim had been granted in full. On 9 May 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s decision of 28 February 2002. The Bardejov District Court, which was dealing with the appeal on points of law prior its submission to the Supreme Court, invited the applicant to submit a power of attorney. The applicant subsequently requested that an attorney should be appointed to represent him free of charge. The District Court allowed his request on 22 January 2004. It appears that these proceedings are still pending. 4.2     Constitutional proceedings On 10 March 1999 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about undue delays in the Bardejov District Court proceedings brought on 23 May 1997. In a letter of 12 April 1999, a constitutional court judge informed the applicant that his motion could not be dealt with as it did not meet the statutory requirements. On 15 March 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint complaining about undue delays in the proceedings brought on 23   May   1997. On 24 September 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as the applicant was not represented by a lawyer as required by the Constitutional Court Act. 5.1     Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 1998 (the Bardejov District Court file No. 8C 714/98) In 1997 the applicant complained about the length of a set of proceedings to the Ministry of Justice. He was invited to pay an administrative fee for lodging his complaint. On 18 May 1998 the applicant sued the State represented by the Ministry of Justice before the Bardejov District Court. He claimed compensation in respect of the allegedly unlawful acting of the Ministry in that he had been requested to pay the above administrative fee. On 4 August 1999 the District Court dismissed his action. The applicant appealed. On 27   March   2000 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment. On 3 June 2000 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s judgment and he requested that he should be exempted from the obligation to pay a court fee and that an attorney should be appointed to represent him free of charge. On 13 September 2000 the Bardejov District Court did not exempt the applicant from the obligation to pay a court fee. The Prešov Regional Court upheld this decision on 31   August 2001. On 12 July 2002 the District Court rejected the applicant’s request for an attorney to be appointed. On 16 December 2002 the Regional Court upheld this decision. On 24 February 2003 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s decision of 16   December 2002. It appears that the proceedings concerning the appeal on points of law lodged on 3 June 2000 are still pending. 5.2     Constitutional proceedings On 8 March 1999 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about undue delays in the proceedings brought on 18 May 1998. In a letter of 12 April 1999, a constitutional court judge informed the applicant that his motion could not be dealt with as it did not meet the statutory requirements. On 14 April 2004 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings concerning his appeals on points of law of 3 June 2000 and of 24 February 2003 respectively. He requested that an attorney should be appointed to represent him free of charge before the Constitutional Court. On 30 June 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s request for appointment of an attorney. On 10 September 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint for falling short of the statutory requirements. 6.1     Constitutional proceedings On 5 March 1998 the applicant filed a motion with the Constitutional Court alleging a violation of his right to work. As the Constitutional Court had not dealt with his case, he complained to the Constitutional Court, on 13   March   1999, about the length of the proceedings concerning his motion of 5 March 1998. In a letter of 12 April 1999, a constitutional court judge informed the applicant that his motion could not be dealt with as it fell short of the statutory requirements. The view was expressed in the letter that by his submissions the applicant was abusing the right to constitutional protection. On 22 June 1998 the applicant filed a motion with the Constitutional Court alleging a violation of his right to just and satisfactory working conditions under Article 36 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court did not deliver a decision on this motion. 6.2     Related proceedings The applicant brought another eight sets of proceedings concerning his labour disputes and the related claims. 7.1     Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 1 October 1997 (the Bardejov District Court file No. 11C 2130/97) On 1 October 1997 the applicant and his wife filed an action with the Bardejov District Court claiming termination of co-ownership of a plot of land. On 24 April 2003 the District Court granted the plaintiffs’ claim. The District Court’s judgment became final on 11 June 2003. 7.2     Constitutional proceedings On 9 March 1999 the applicant complained about undue delays in the above proceedings to the Constitutional Court. In a letter of 12 April 1999 a constitutional court judge informed him that his motion could not be dealt with as it clearly did not meet the statutory requirements. 8.1     Proceedings concerning the estate of the applicant’s mother (the Svidník District Court file No. D 240/93) On 11 March 1992 the applicant claimed before a State Notary in Svidník that the estate of his late mother should be determined. Considering that the proceedings before the State Notary were lengthy, the applicant filed his claim with the Svidník District Court on 9 March 1993. On 28   May   1993 the court started the inheritance proceedings and appointed a notary public to deal with the case. On 25 August 1998 the applicant requested the Bardejov District Court to inform him whether his brother had been adopted by his parents. In a reply of 21 September 1998, the court informed the applicant that his request for information could not be granted. On 7 February 2001 the District Court determined the estate, holding that the applicant inherited the whole estate. The court also ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings to the notary public. The applicant appealed and the Prešov Regional Court upheld the first instance decision on 26 July 2001. 8.2     Enforcement proceedings of 2002 (the Svidník District Court file No. 2E 219/02) On 15 May 2002 the applicant brought enforcement proceedings against the Prešov Land Register Office claiming, with reference to the above District Court’s decision of 7 February 2001, that the defendant should be obliged to register the applicant’s ownership of the inherited property in the land register. On 5 December 2002 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant’s claim fell outside jurisdiction of ordinary courts. The applicant appealed. On 7 January 2004 the Prešov Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision stating that after having discontinued the enforcement proceedings for lack of jurisdiction, the District Court should have transferred the case to the relevant administrative authority. By a decision of 24 May 2004, the District Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings and transferred the case to the Svidník Land Register Administration. The applicant appealed and the Regional Court upheld the first instance decision on 3 August 2004. 8.3     Administrative proceedings before the Land Register In a letter of 28 March 2002, the Svidník Land Register Administration informed the applicant that the majority of the inherited plots of land had been entered in the land register as being in his ownership following the District Court’s decision of 7 February 2001. It further informed him that several of the inherited plots of land had been re-registered under Act No. 180/1995 and that, therefore, those plots could not be registered as in the applicant’s ownership. The applicant complained about the Svidník Land Register Administration’s actions to the Prešov Land Registry. The Prešov Land Registry held that the Svidník Land Register Administration should not have entered any of the inherited plots of land in the land register in case that there had been differences in their identification in the court’s decision and in the land register. The Prešov Land Registry further informed the applicant that the aforesaid errors in the land register would be corrected in cooperation with him pursuant to Article 59 of the Land Register Act of 1995. In its letter of 22 October 2002, the Land Registry also stated that, in 1998 the applicant had been invited to file objections to the re-registration of the land if he so wished, and that he had failed to do so. The decision on re-registration had been given on 11 January 1999. On 7 November 2002 and on 17 January 2003 respectively, the Svidník Land Register Administration summoned the applicant to a hearing in the proceedings under Article 59 of the Land Register Act. The applicant replied that he did not intend to appear at the hearing as he considered those proceedings to be erroneous. 8.4     Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for damages of 2001 (the Bardejov District Court file No. 1C 328/01) On 19 April 2001 the applicant sued the Ministry of Justice under the State Liability Act of 1969 claiming damages in respect of undue delays on the part of the notary public in the above inheritance proceedings. He alleged that he had suffered damage in that he had had to pay the costs of the proceedings emanating from the notary public’s inactivity. By a decision of 12 November 2001, the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim stating that undue delays in the proceedings could not be considered as erroneous official conduct under the State Liability Act of 1969 and that the obligation to pay the costs of the proceedings imposed on the applicant by the court could not be considered as damage suffered by the applicant. The court also held that the applicant had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings since at least ten hearings had been adjourned due to his absence. The applicant appealed and the Prešov Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment on 10 June 2002. The Regional Court’s decision became final on 2 September 2002. On 4 November 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s decision of 10 June 2002 requesting that an attorney should be appointed by the court to represent him free of charge. After having examined the applicant’s financial situation, the District Court, which dealt with the appeal on points of law prior to its submission to the Supreme Court, rejected his request. On 16 August 2004 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings holding that (i) the applicant had failed to comply with the statutory requirement of legal representation and (ii) the appeal on points of law had been lodged beyond the statutory one month time-limit. 8.5     Constitutional proceedings On 21 March 1999 the applicant filed a motion with the Constitutional Court alleging a violation of his right to receive information in respect of the Bardejov District Court’s refusal to inform him whether or not his brother had been adopted. In a letter of 12 April 1999 a constitutional court judge informed the applicant that his motion could not be dealt with as it clearly did not meet the statutory requirements. On 19 September 2002 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the alleged violation of his right to judicial protection in that the courts had not granted his claim for damages in the proceedings of 2001 (the Bardejov District Court file No. 1C 328/01) . The Constitutional Court examined the judgments of both the District Court and the Regional Court finding no indication of arbitrariness in them. It therefore rejected the complaint as being manifestly ill-founded on 8 January 2003. The applicant submits that, prior to the delivery of the decision, he did not know who was the presiding constitutional court judge in his case. In his view, that judge was biased. On 11 December 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about undue delays in the Bardejov District Court’s processing of his appeal on points of law of 4 November 2002. On 24 March 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as being manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court held that the periods of the District Court’s inactivity were insignificant in the context of the case and that the applicant had himself contributed to the length of the proceedings. On 6 February 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court alleging undue delays in the enforcement proceedings of 2002. On 10 November 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as being manifestly ill-founded holding that the length of the enforcement proceedings had not been unreasonable. On 8 November 2004 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the alleged violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and of his right of access to a court in respect of the courts’ decisions in the enforcement proceedings of 2002. Having found no indication of arbitrariness in the courts’ decisions in issue, the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as being manifestly ill-founded on 16 February 2005. The Constitutional Court also held that it was open to the applicant to file a judicial action challenging the inactivity of the administrative authority. 9.1     Proceedings concerning the estate of the applicant’s aunt (the Prešov District Court file No. D 2730/92) On 14 February 1992 the applicant’s sister instituted inheritance proceedings concerning a newly discovered inheritance from her late aunt before the Prešov District Court. The applicant was not a party to the proceedings and he acted as the claimant’s representative. In a letter of 21   April 1996 the applicant, acting on behalf of his sister, requested that the above proceedings be discontinued. By a decision which became final on 29   May 1998, the District Court discontinued the inheritance proceedings. 9.2     Proceedings before the Constitutional Court On 8 June 2004 the applicant complained about a violation of his rights in the above proceedings concerning the estate of his aunt. On 16 February 2005 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint holding that the applicant lacked standing in the case as he had not been a party to the proceedings in issue. The Constitutional Court also found that the applicant was neither a testamentary nor a legal heir of his aunt. 9.3     Proceedings concerning the estate of the applicant’s great ‑ grandparents (the Prešov District Court file No. D 579/93) On 25 March 1993 the Prešov District Court started, at the applicant’s request, inheritance proceedings concerning the allegedly newly discovered inheritance from his great-grandparents. On 6 February 1996 the court discontinued the proceedings holding that no new property had been discovered. This decision became final on 28 March 1996. On 2 April 1996 the applicant requested the Prešov District Court to re-open the above proceedings. On 5 September 1996 the District Court dismissed his motion. The applicant appealed. The outcome of the appellate proceedings is unknown. 9.4     Proceedings concerning the estate of the applicant’s grandmother (the Prešov District Court file No. D 581/93) On 11 March 1992 the applicant and his siblings instituted inheritance proceedings concerning a newly discovered inheritance from their late grandmother. A notary public was appointed by the Prešov District Court to deal with the case. In February 1996 the notary public invited the applicant to submit an expert opinion on the value of the inheritance in question. In a letter of 27 March 1996, the applicant informed the notary that he would not comply with the request as it lacked any legal ground. The applicant also alleged that the costs of the expert opinion would probably exceed the value of the inheritance. On 21 August 1996 the District Court ordered the applicant’s sister to submit the relevant expert opinion failing which the proceedings would be discontinued. The applicant’s sister did not comply with the court’s order. On 13 October 2003 the District Court discontinued the proceedings holding that, as the party to the proceedings had failed to submit the requested documents, the court could not proceed with the case. No appeal was available against the District Court’s decision. 9.5     Related proceedings In December 2004 the applicant instituted restitution proceedings claiming that the above newly discovered property (plots of land) be restored to him. In June 2005 he re-instituted inheritance proceedings concerning a newly discovered inheritance from his late grandmother, aunt and great ‑ grandfather. These two sets of proceedings are apparently still pending. 10.1     Background information In 1993 the applicant’s request for a free medical treatment in a spa resort was granted by the Social Security Administration. After several days of cure, the applicant was excluded from the treatment by a decision of the head physician of the spa resort for having been under the influence of alcohol during the cure. 10.2     Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for damages of 1995 (the Bardejov District Court file No. 11 C 581/95) On 27 November 1995 the applicant sued the Ministry of Health under the State Liability Act of 1969 claiming damages in respect of his exclusion from the medical treatment in the spa. He alleged that he had suffered damage in that he had been unlawfully excluded from the treatment and he claimed that a sum equivalent to the treatment costs be paid to him by the defendant. The costs of the spa treatment were covered by the Social Security Administration. On 2 March 1998 the Bardejov District Court dismissed the applicant’s action as falling outside the scope of the State Liability Act since the action of the head physician could not be considered as a public official’s action within the meaning of this Act. The court also held that the applicant had failed to prove that he had suffered any damage in respect of the head physician’s action. The applicant appealed. The Prešov Regional Court summoned the applicant to a hearing scheduled for 16 November 1998 at 12.00 hours. The applicant alleges that he waited in front of the hearing room from 11.50 till 12.28 hours but the hearing room was locked and the judges did not appear. The applicant left the court building at 12.30 hours. On the same day the Regional Court gave a decision on the case upholding the District Court’s judgment of 2   March   1998. The appellate court found that the applicant’s action fell within the scope of the State Liability Act. The court further held that, although the head physician had not acted in compliance with the procedure prescribed by law when deciding on the applicant’s exclusion, the applicant’s claim for damages could not be granted since he had not suffered any damage as a result of this erroneous acting. Subsequently the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s decision complaining that the appellate court had held a hearing in his absence. On 28 January 2000 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law without holding a hearing on the case. The Supreme Court found that, according to the minutes of 16 November 1998, the appellate court had held the hearing at 12.15 hours and that both parties had been absent without having requested that the hearing be postponed. The Supreme Court held that the insignificant delay of 15   minutes should not have prevented the applicant from attending the hearing and that the applicant had not given any other reason for his absence at the hearing. The Supreme Court concluded that there had been no violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in respect of the Regional Court’s acting. 10.3     Constitutional proceedings On 22 March 1999 the applicant filed a motion with the Constitutional Court complaining about the action of the Prešov Regional Court in the appellate proceedings. In a letter of 12 April 1999, a constitutional court judge informed the applicant that his motion could not be dealt with as it did not meet the statutory requirements. On 6 April 1999 the applicant lodged a petition with the Constitutional Court alleging a violation of his constitutional right to protection of health in respect of his exclusion from the medical treatment. On 21 April 1999 the Constitutional Court rejected the petition on the ground that the case fell within the jurisdiction of ordinary courts and that the Constitutional Court was not called upon to act as a court of third instance. On 14 May 1999 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings before the Bardejov District Court. The applicant was requested to submit a power of attorney. He failed to do so. On 22 September 1999 the Constitutional Court discontinued the proceedings for the applicant’s failure to comply with the statutory requirements. 10.4     Related proceedings (the Bardejov District Court files No. 4C 34/96 and 4C 212/96) In 1996 the applicant brought two sets of proceedings (including proceedings concerning his claim for protection of his personal rights) related to his exclusion from the spa treatment before the Bardejov District Court. The final decisions in these sets of proceedings were given on 10   September 1997 and on 27 November 1997 respectively. 11.1     Proceedings concerning the appeal on points of law of 1996 On 11 May 1993 the applicant instituted compensation proceedings before the Bardejov District Court. On 20 January 1994 the District Court dismissed the action. On 26 May 1995 the Košice Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision. The Regional Court’s judgment became final on 20 July 1995 when it was delivered both to the applicant and the defendant. On 19 January 1996 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s judgment. On 9 December 1999 the Supreme Court rejected it as having been lodged beyond the statutory one month time-limit. 11.2     Defamation proceedings of 1992 (the Bratislava Municipal Court file No. 5C 17/92) On 19 June 1989 the District Administration of Telecommunications in Bardejov disconnected the applicant’s telephone as he had failed to pay the fees. The applicant challenged this decision. In its decision of 8 May 1991, the Post and Telecommunications Administration in Bratislava gave a decision in which it stated, inter alia , that the applicant had been convicted of an offence. The final decision in respect of disconnection of the applicant’s telephone was given on 30 October 1991. On 6 January 1992 the applicant filed a defamation action against the Post and Telecommunications Administration alleging that the aforesaid statement interfered with his personal rights. On 7 September 1992 the Municipal Court in Bratislava dismissed the action. On 16 February 1993 the Supreme Court upheld the first instance judgment. The applicant complained about different aspects of this case in his application no. 32106/96 ( decision of 13 September 2001 ). 11.3     Constitutional proceedings On 29 March 1999 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the above Post and Telecommunications Administration’s decision of 8 May 1991 interfered with his personal rights. In a letter of 8 February 2000, a constitutional court judge informed the applicant that his motion could not be dealt with since the Constitutional Court lacked jurisdiction to act as the court of third instance. On 23 May 1999 the applicant filed a petition with the Constitutional Court complaining about the length of the proceedings concerning his appeal on points of law of 19 January 1996. A constitutional court judge invited the applicant to submit a power of attorney. The applicant replied to the Constitutional Court stating that he could not afford to pay an attorney as he was indigent. The Constitutional Court informed the applicant that should he fail to submit the power of attorney within the given time-limit, the proceedings would be discontinued. It also instructed the applicant to address his request for legal representation to the Slovak Bar Association. As the applicant did not respond within the indicated time-limit, the Constitutional Court discontinued the proceedings on 5 January 2000. 11.4     Related proceedings The applicant brought another three sets of proceedings before the ordinary courts and two sets of constitutional proceedings related to the disconnection of his telephone line. Two sets of proceedings are apparently still pending before ordinary courts. 12.1     Proceedings concerning the action for protection of ownership rights of 1991 (the Bardejov District Court file No. 7C 107/91) On 14 February 1991 the applicant and his wife filed an action with the Bardejov District Court claiming protection of their ownership rights in respect of two plots of land. In the course of the proceedings, the plaintiffs supplemented their action claiming protection of their ownership rights in respect of another plot of land and claiming that the defendants should be obliged to remove garbage from the relevant plots. On 31 October 1996 the District Court ordered the defendants to refrain from interfering with the plaintiffs’ ownership rights in respect of two plots of land and it decided to deal with the remaining claim in a separate set of proceedings ( the Bardejov District Court file No. 4C 1313/98 ). On 4 March 1998 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment of 31 October 1996 which thus became final on 21 August 1998. 12.2     Proceedings concerning enforcement of the Bardejov District Court’s judgment of 31 October 1996 In 1998 the applicant and his wife requested the Bardejov District Court to enforce its judgment of 31 October 1996. On 21 April 1999 the District Court imposed a fine on the defendants for their failure to respect the above final judgment. The defendants appealed against the decision. On 28 February 2000 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision on the fine. The applicant repeatedly informed the District Court about the defendants’ failure to respect the final judgment of 31 October 1996 claiming that the court should impose a fine on them in this respect. The applicant submits that the court did not react to his motions. 12.3     Proceedings concerning the applicant’s outstanding claim for protection of ownership rights (the Bardejov District Court file No. 4C 1313/98) As regards the claim concerning the third plot of land, which the Bardejov District Court decided to determine in a separate set of proceedings, hearings were scheduled for 4 February 1999, 18 February 1999 and 18   March 1999. At these hearings the case was adjourned due to absence of the defendants’ representative. The District Court adjourned the case also on 18 May 1999 requesting that the parties submit certificates of ownership. On 9 June 1999 the District Court held a hearing. The applicant alleges that, while questioning the defendants, the judge called one of the defendants “comrade”. When the defendant protested against it, the judge told him that he had been a “comrade” himself and that he was not ashamed of it. The applicant submits that he wanted to express his opinion on the judge’s statement but the judge did not allow him to speak. On the same day the District Court gave a judgment ordering the defendants to refrain from interfering with the plaintiffs’ ownership rights. The court further decided to deal with the remaining claim concerning the prohibition to enter the third plot and the obligation to remove garbage in a separate set of proceedings. The plaintiffs appealed against the District Court’s judgment. On 19 April 2004 the Prešov Regional Court quashed the part of the District Court’s judgment concerning the obligation imposed on the defendants and returned the case to the first instance court. On 8 August 2004 the applicant challenged the District Court judge alleging that he was acting in the case with undue delays. On 8 September 2004 the Regional Court decided that the District Court judge was not excluded from hearing the case. On 10 December 2004 the defendants submitted a sale contract to the court according to which they had sold the relevant plots of land to third persons. The District Court invited the plaintiffs to inform the court whether they maintained their claim and it adjourned the case. On 28 December 2004 the applicant informed the court that the plaintiffs maintained their claim. The proceedings are apparently still pending. 12.4     Interlocutory proceedings of 1999 In 1999 the applicant and his wife requested that an interim measure be issued pending the outcome of the above proceedings ( file no. 4C 1313/98 ). On 7 April 2000 the District Court dismissed the motion. On 19 September 2001 the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision. 12.5     Constitutional proceedings On 24 June 1999 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the Bardejov District Court judge’s conduct at the hearing of 9 June 1999. On 9 September 1999 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s petition as being manifestly ill-founded. On 5 July 1999 the applicant filed a motion with the Constitutional Court complaining about continuous interference with his ownership rights. On 18 August 1999 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s motion for his failure to meet the statutory requirement of legal representation. On 7 July 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court objecting to undue delays in (a) the Bardejov District Court’s proceedings ( file nos. 7C 107/91 and 4C 1313/98 ) and (b) the related Prešov Regional Court’s proceedings. He also alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that he could not enjoy his possessions peacefully. On 28   October 2004 the Constitutional Court invited the applicant to specify his complaint about the Prešov Regional Court’s proceedings and his claim in this respect. The applicant failed to do so. On 15 December 2004 the Constitutional Court declared admissible the part of the complaint concerning the length of the Bardejov District Court’s proceedings. It rejected the Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 complaint as being premature and the complaint concerning the length of the Prešov Regional Court’s proceedings for the applicant’s failure to specify this part of the complaint despite the Constitutional Court’s invitation of 28 October 2004. On 15 March 2005 the Constitutional Court held that the Bardejov District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have the case decided without undue delays and ordered the District Court to proceed with the case. The Constitutional Court found that the Bardejov District Court had been inactive without any justification from 16 November 1995 till 22   July 1996 (a total of 9 months) and that there had been several formal errors in its handling of the case which had contributed to the total length of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court also found that the applicant’s behaviour had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings as he had failed to appear at three hearings, he had modified his claim several times and he had challenged the judge twice (in 1992 and in 2004 respectively). It therefore decided not to award the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 12.6 &#xa