Last Updated on September 22, 2021 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18006/14
Štefan HARABIN
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 June 2018 as a Chamber composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Helen Keller,
Dmitry Dedov,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Georgios A. Serghides,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 February 2014,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Štefan Harabin, is a Slovak national who was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Novák, a lawyer practising in Banská Bystrica.
2. The applicant is a Supreme Court judge. In the past he was twice President of the Supreme Court and at a different time he also simultaneously held the posts of Minister of Justice and Deputy Prime Minister.
3. This is one of seven applications that he has made under the Convention.
The circumstances of the case
4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
5. On 2 July 2007 the applicant brought a libel action against a publishing house in relation to an article that had been published on 29 May 2007 and concerned a legislative proposal for an amendment to the Criminal Code, a proposal prepared by the Ministry of Justice with the applicant at its head.
6. The action was examined at first instance by the Bratislava V District Court (“the District Court”) and, on appeal, by the Bratislava Regional Court (“the Regional Court”), which gave their respective judgments on 6 December 2007 and 11 December 2008.
In sum, the defendant was ordered to pay the applicant the equivalent of 16,600 euros (EUR) in damages, the remainder of the applicant’s claim was dismissed, and the matter became resolved by force of rei judicatae.
7. The publisher challenged the judgment of 11 December 2008 by way of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, alleging, inter alia, a violation of its freedom of expression.
8. On 18 September 2012, sitting as a three-member chamber, the Constitutional Court allowed the publisher’s complaint, quashed the judgment of 11 December 2008, and remitted the case to the Regional Court for re‑examination.
9. On 13 September 2013 the Regional Court sent a copy of the constitutional judgment of 18 September 2012 to the applicant, at his request.
COMPLAINT
10. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a hearing by an impartial tribunal on account of the composition of the Constitutional Court’s chamber which gave the constitutional judgment of 18 September 2012.
THE LAW
11. The applicant alleged a violation of his right to a hearing by an impartial tribunal under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a … hearing … by an … impartial tribunal …”
12. On 29 November 2017 the Registrar of the Third Section addressed the applicant, through the intermediary of his lawyer, with a letter in the following terms:
“I write to inform you that the Chamber to which the above application had been allocated decided that further information was required from the applicant concerning the proceedings in his libel action of 2 July 2007 (Bratislava V District Court file no. 7C 239/07) after the Constitutional Court’s judgement (nález) of 18 September 2012 (case no. II. ÚS 340/09).
The Chamber has accordingly instructed me, under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, to request you to inform me in detail on further development, current state and outcome (if any) of that action and to submit copies of any relevant official communication and decisions in that matter.
At the same time, you are requested:
– to submit copies of the applicant’s submissions of 22 and 29 September 2011 that were decided on by the Constitutional Court in its decision of 3 April 2012 (case no. III. ÚS 140/12); and
– to inform me and to support that information by copies of pertaining documentation in respect any possible other relevant facts and developments in the matter of which the Court has not been informed so far (Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court).
You are requested to submit this information and material by 3 January 2018.”
13. The applicant responded by submissions that were received at the Court by post on 8 and 19 January 2019. Among others, the following facts may be established from their contents:
– Following the quashing by the Constitutional Court on 18 September 2012 of the Regional Court’ judgment of 11 December 2008 (see paragraphs 6 and 8 above), on 2 May 2014 the Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment of 6 December 2007 and remitted the matter to the latter for re-examination.
– On 20 October 2016 the District Court terminated the proceedings following the applicant’s withdrawal of his action. In so far as can be established from the District Court’s decision, the applicant withdrew his action “on the ground that, for him, the object of the action [had fallen] away (pre žalobcu predmet sporu odpadol)”. The applicant has not challenged this ruling and it has become final and binding.
14. Under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention:
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
…
(b) the matter has been resolved, and
(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.”
15. Under Rule 44C § 1 of the Rules of Court:
“1. Where a party fails to adduce evidence or provide information requested by the Court or to divulge relevant information of its own motion or otherwise fails to participate effectively in the proceedings, the Court may draw such inferences as it deems appropriate.”
16. Under Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court:
“Applicants shall keep the Court informed … of all circumstances relevant to the application.”
17. Although the application as such is aimed at the proceedings before the Constitutional Court resulting in its judgment of 18 September 2012, the resumption of the proceedings was plainly a continuation of the same “determination” of the applicant’s “civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
18. From that perspective, the Court considers that the further development, current state and outcome of that action after the constitutional judgment of 18 September 2012 cannot but constitute “circumstances relevant to the application” in terms of Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court.
19. The importance of these circumstances must have been clear to the applicant at the latest when he received the Registrar’s letter of 29 November 2017 asking him to inform the Court “in detail on further development, current state and outcome (if any) of [the applicant’s action of 2 July 2007] [after the constitutional judgment of 18 September 2012]”, “copies of any relevant official communication and decisions in that matter” and to submit copies of any relevant official communication and decisions in that matter, as well as “to inform [the Court] and to support that information by copies of pertaining documentation in respect any possible other relevant facts and developments in the matter of which the Court ha[d] not been informed so far (Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court)”.
20. Despite the provisions of Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court, the applicant has failed to keep it informed of his own initiative of all circumstances relevant to the application. Moreover, despite the express terms of the letter of 29 November 2017, he has provided the Court with no information and documentation whatsoever as regards the circumstances, motives and implications in relation to his withdrawal of the action of 2 July 2007 (see Shanidze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 56080/10, § 20, 30 June 2015, with further references).
21. Having regard to all the circumstances, including the facts that the applicant is himself a lawyer, that he has been represented before the Court by another lawyer, and that the applicant must be well aware of the Court’s procedures (see paragraph 3 above as well as, mutatis mutandis, Buzinger v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32133/10, § 23, 16 June 2015), the Court considers it appropriate under Rule 44C § 1 of the Rules of Court to infer from the applicant’s position before the District Court that his libel dispute as such has been resolved. Moreover, on the same basis and in the absence of any indication from the applicant to the contrary, the Court finds that this resolution includes any possible separate issues in relation to the constitutional proceedings resulting in the judgment of 18 September 2012.
22. The Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
23. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the application out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (b) and (c) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 July 2018.
Stephen Phillips Helena Jäderblom
Registrar President
Leave a Reply