THIRD SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 18006\/14
\n\u0160tefan HARABIN
\nagainst Slovakia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19\u00a0June\u00a02018 as a Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n
Helena J\u00e4derblom, President,
\nBranko Lubarda,
\nHelen Keller,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides,
\nJolien Schukking, judges,
\nand Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 February 2014,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr \u0160tefan Harabin, is a Slovak national who was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava. He was represented before the Court by Mr\u00a0B. Nov\u00e1k, a lawyer practising in Bansk\u00e1 Bystrica.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0This is one of seven applications that he has made under the Convention.<\/p>\n The circumstances of the case<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 July 2007 the applicant brought a libel action against a\u00a0publishing house in relation to an article that had been published on 29\u00a0May 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.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The action was examined at first instance by the Bratislava V District Court (\u201cthe District Court\u201d) and, on appeal, by the Bratislava Regional Court (\u201cthe Regional Court\u201d), which gave their respective judgments on 6\u00a0December 2007 and 11 December 2008.<\/p>\n In sum, the defendant was ordered to pay the applicant the equivalent of 16,600 euros (EUR) in damages, the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim was dismissed, and the matter became resolved by force of rei judicatae.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The publisher challenged the judgment of 11 December 2008 by way of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, alleging, inter alia, a\u00a0violation of its freedom of expression.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 September 2012, sitting as a three-member chamber, the Constitutional Court allowed the publisher\u2019s complaint, quashed the judgment of 11 December 2008, and remitted the case to the Regional Court for re\u2011examination.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 September 2013 the Regional Court sent a copy of the constitutional judgment of 18 September 2012 to the applicant, at his request.<\/p>\n COMPLAINT<\/strong><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a hearing by an impartial tribunal on account of the composition of the Constitutional Court\u2019s chamber which gave the constitutional judgment of 18 September 2012.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant alleged a violation of his right to a hearing by an\u00a0impartial tribunal under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a … hearing … by an … impartial tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 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:<\/p>\n \u201cI 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\u2019s judgement (n\u00e1lez) of 18 September 2012 (case no. II. \u00daS 340\/09).<\/p>\n The Chamber has accordingly instructed me, under Rule 54 \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n At the same time, you are requested:<\/p>\n –\u00a0to submit copies of the applicant\u2019s submissions of 22 and 29 September 2011 that were decided on by the Constitutional Court in its decision of 3 April 2012 (case no.\u00a0III. \u00daS 140\/12); and<\/p>\n –\u00a0to 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 \u00a7 7 of the Rules of Court).<\/p>\n You are requested to submit this information and material by 3 January 2018.\u201d<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The 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:<\/p>\n –\u00a0Following the quashing by the Constitutional Court on 18\u00a0September\u00a02012 of the Regional Court\u2019 judgment of 11 December 2008 (see paragraphs 6 and 8 above), on 2 May 2014 the Regional Court quashed the District Court\u2019s judgment of 6 December 2007 and remitted the matter to the latter for re-examination.<\/p>\n –\u00a0On 20 October 2016 the District Court terminated the proceedings following the applicant\u2019s withdrawal of his action. In so far as can be established from the District Court\u2019s decision, the applicant withdrew his action \u201con the ground that, for him, the object of the action [had fallen] away (pre \u017ealobcu predmet sporu odpadol)\u201d. The applicant has not challenged this ruling and it has become final and binding.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0Under Article 37 \u00a7 1 of the Convention:<\/p>\n \u201cThe 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<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0the matter has been resolved, and<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.\u201d<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0Under Rule 44C \u00a7 1 of the Rules of Court:<\/p>\n \u201c1. 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\u00a0participate effectively in the proceedings, the Court may draw such inferences as it deems appropriate.\u201d<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Under Rule 47 \u00a7 7 of the Rules of Court:<\/p>\n \u201cApplicants shall keep the Court informed … of all circumstances relevant to the application.\u201d<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0Although 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 \u201cdetermination\u201d of the applicant\u2019s \u201ccivil rights and obligations\u201d within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0From that perspective, the Court considers that the further development, current state and outcome of that action after the\u00a0constitutional judgment of 18 September 2012 cannot but constitute \u201ccircumstances relevant to the application\u201d in terms of Rule 47 \u00a7 7 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The importance of these circumstances must have been clear to the applicant at the latest when he received the Registrar\u2019s letter of\u00a029\u00a0November 2017 asking him to inform the Court \u201cin detail on further development, current state and outcome (if any) of [the applicant\u2019s action of\u00a02 July 2007] [after the constitutional judgment of 18\u00a0September 2012]\u201d, \u201ccopies of any relevant official communication and decisions in that matter\u201d and to submit copies of any relevant official communication and decisions in that matter, as well as \u201cto 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 \u00a7 7 of the Rules of Court)\u201d.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0Despite the provisions of Rule 47 \u00a7 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\u00a0July\u00a02007 (see Shanidze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 56080\/10, \u00a7 20, 30\u00a0June\u00a02015, with further references).<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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\u2019s procedures (see paragraph 3 above as well as, mutatis mutandis, Buzinger v.\u00a0Slovakia (dec.), no. 32133\/10, \u00a7 23, 16 June 2015), the Court considers it\u00a0appropriate under Rule 44C \u00a7 1 of the Rules of Court to infer from the applicant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 \u00a7 1 in fine).<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the application out of its list of cases under Article 37 \u00a7 1 (b) and (c) of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 12 July 2018.<\/p>\n Stephen Phillips\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Helena J\u00e4derblom
\nRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n