Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
The case was referred to the Court by a Slovak national, I.S. (“the applicant”) on 4 February 1999 pursuant to former Article 48 § 1(e) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). It originated in an application (no. 25006/94) against Slovakia lodged by the applicant with the Commission under former Article 25 of the Convention, on 3 May 1994. The Slovak Government are represented by their Agent, Mr R. Fico.
The case concerns the duration of the proceedings instituted by the applicant and whether they were terminated within a “reasonable time” as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
On 27 April 1999 the President invited the parties to submit memorials on the issues arising in the case (Rule 59 § 3). The applicant was further invited to submit his claim for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention (Rule 60 § 1). The Government replied on 7 July 1999. The applicant failed to respond.
On 21 January 1993 the judge ordered an inspection of the site for 9 February 1993. During the inspection it was established that the first defendant, a business enterprise, had been in proceedings of dissolution since 1 January 1992 and its property had been transferred to the Žilina Town (Mesto Žilina) . The judge therefore asked the applicant to amend his restitution action and designate a new defendant.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.