CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 28 février 1996

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 29008/95                       by Gejza CERVENÁK, Margita CERVENÁKOVÁ, Aranka                       HORVÁTOVÁ, Ondrej CERVENÁK, Iveta CERVENÁKOVÁ,                       Peter MIRGA and Vojtech FILKO                       against the Czech Republic        The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 28 February 1996, the following members being present:              Mr.    H. DANELIUS, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    G. JÖRUNDSSON                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN              Ms.    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 24 October 1995 by Gejza CERVENÁK, Margita CERVENÁKOVÁ, Aranka HORVÁTOVÁ, Ondrej CERVENÁK, Iveta CERVENÁKOVÁ, Peter MIRGA and Vojtech FILKO against the Czech Republic and registered on 31 October 1995 under file No. 29008/95;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicants are Czech citizens and reside at Ústí nad Labem (Czech Republic).   Before the Commission, they are represented by Ms. Klára Veselá-Samková, a lawyer practising in Prague 2.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.   A.    The particular circumstances of the case        The applicants are tenants of flats assigned to them in 1990, 1991 and 1992 respectively by the Ústí nad Labem 1 District Office, which is the owner of the buildings in which the flats are located.        On 24 February 1993 the Ústí nad Labem City Police broke into the flats concerned and, with the assistance of the Ústí nad Labem 1 District Office, emptied the flats by placing their contents on the street.   The applicants and their families were forced to leave the flats.        The applicants were informed that their right to use the flats had been terminated.   The applicants were bought train tickets to Slovakia together with luggage space.    They were put on a train under a continuous police escort.        The applicants had not been informed that the eviction was to be carried out on that day. They had had no opportunity to secure their belongings.   They had never shown any intention to leave their flats and depart from the area.        The Ústí nad Labem 1 District Office justified its actions by claiming that the applicants had indicated their intention to move to Slovakia, and, for that reason, it had decided to terminate the lease of the flats.        On 19 May 1993 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Ústí nad Labem 1 District Court in which they asked the court to find that their leases still subsisted.   They also proposed a preliminary measure regarding access to the flats.        On 11 October 1993 the Ústí nad Labem 1 District Court asked the applicants to complete their civil action and to clarify inconsistencies in the documents lodged.   On 5 November 1993 the applicants submitted further information.        On 25 March and 28 June 1994 the applicants complained before the District Court that the proceedings had not yet started.   On 15 July 1994 the President of the District Court noted that the complaint was justified.   The matter was assigned to another judge as the judge dealing with the case was on maternity leave.        On 18 July 1995 the applicants sent another complaint to the District Court stating that there had not been any progress in the proceedings for more than two years.   On 21 August 1995 the President of the District Court replied that the judge dealing with the case was overloaded with work and, therefore, the proceedings were delayed.   B.    Relevant domestic law and practice   Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms                                 Article 38 [Translation]        "1.    Nobody shall be denied his or her statutory judge. (...)        2.     Everybody is entitled to have his or her case considered in      public without unnecessary delay and in his or her presence, and      to express his or her opinion on all the evidence submitted.      (...)"   [Original]        1.     Nikdo nesmí byt odnat svému zákonnému soudci. (...)        2.     Kazdy má právo, aby jeho vec byla projednána verejne, bez      zbytecnych prutahu a v jeho prítomnosti a aby se mohl vyjádrit      ke vsem provádenym dukazum. (...)"   Law No. 182/1993 on the Constitutional Court                                 Article 72 [Translation]        "1.    A constitutional appeal may be introduced by        a)     any natural person (...) who claims to be the victim of a      breach by 'a public authority' of the fundamental rights or      freedoms recognised in a constitutional law or an international      treaty (...)"   [Original]        "1.    Ústavní stíznost jsou oprávneni podat        a)     fyzická (...) osoba (...), jestlize tvrdí, ze zásahem      'orgánu verejné moci' bylo poruseno její základní právo nebo      svoboda zaruCené ústavním zákonem nebo mezinárodní smlouvou      (...)"                                 Article 82 [Translation]        "1.    In its judgment, the Court shall hold that it allows the      constitutional appeal in its entirety, dismisses it in its      entirety, or allows it in part and dismisses it in part.        2.     If the Court allows the constitutional appeal, it shall      declare in its judgment:        a)     (...), which of the constitutionally guaranteed rights or      freedoms and which provision of a constitutional act or an      international treaty (...) was violated, and which action by a      public authority resulted in the violation;      (...)      3.     If it allows the constitutional appeal of a natural or      legal person (...), the Court shall:        a)     annul the contested decision of the public authority, or        b)     if a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right or basic      freedom was violated as the result of an action by a public      authority other than a decision, order the authority not to      continue violating this right or freedom and order it, to the      extent possible, to restore the situation that existed prior to      the violation. (...)"   [Original]        "1.    Ústavní soud rozhodne nálezem, kterym ústavní stíznosti      zcela vyhoví nebo ústavní stíznost zcela zamítne anebo jí zcásti      vyhoví a zcásti zamítne.        2.     Vyhoví-li Ústavní soud ústavní stíznosti, vysloví v nálezu        a)     (...) které ústavne zarucené právo nebo svoboda, a jaké      ustanovení ústavního zákona nebo mezinárodní smlouvy (...) bylo      poruseno a jakym zásahem orgánu verejné moci k tomuto porusení      doslo;      (...)      3.     Bylo-li vyhoveno ústavní stíznosti fyzické nebo právnické      osoby (...), Ústavní soud        a)     zrusí napadené rozhodnutí orgánu verejné moci, nebo        b)     jestlize porusení zaruceného základního práva nebo svobody      spocívalo v jiném zásahu orgánu verejné moci, nez je rozhodnutí,      zakáze tomuto orgánu, aby v porusování práva a svobody      pokracoval, a prikáze mu, aby, pokud je to mozné, obnovil stav      pred porusením. (...)"   COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicants complain that their eviction from their flats, organised by public authorities, constituted an unauthorised interference in their personal and private lives.   They also complain about harassment caused to them by journalists.   They invoke, in substance, Article 8 of the Convention.   2.    The applicants also complain under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that their case has not been decided within a reasonable time, as the Court action has lasted two years and eight months without any progress in the proceedings.   THE LAW   1.    The applicants complain that their eviction from their flats, organised by public authorities, constituted an unauthorised interference in their personal and private lives.   They invoke, in substance, Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.        The Commission is not required to examine the question whether the facts submitted by the applicants disclose any appearance of a violation of those provisions insofar as, according to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, it may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law.        The Commission observes that the civil proceedings are still pending before the Ústí nad Labem 1 District Court and finds that the domestic remedies have not yet been exhausted.        It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   2.    The applicants also complain under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention that their case has not been determined within a reasonable time, as the court action started two years and eight months ago and there has been no progress in the proceedings.        The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention reads:        "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,      everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable      time by a ... tribunal ..."        The Commission is not, however, called upon to decide whether the facts alleged by the applicants disclose any appearance of a violation of the above provision.   It again recalls that under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, it may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law.   Furthermore, if there exists mere doubt as to the chances of success of a domestic remedy, it must be tried (cf. No. 23548/94, Dec. 29.6.94, D.R. 78, p. 146).        The Commission notes that, pursuant to Article 72 para. 1 of Law No. 182/1993 on the Constitutional Court, it is open to the applicants to bring the complaints raised before the Constitutional Court in the context of a constitutional appeal.   In such an appeal, the applicants can raise the complaints relating to the length of the proceedings, by alleging a violation of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to be heard without unnecessary delay, or of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, which is directly applicable in Czech law.        The Commission considers, in particular in the light of Article 82 para. 3 of Law No. 182/1993 on the Constitutional Court, that this remedy could have afforded redress in respect of the situation the applicants complain of.   It cannot therefore be held to be ineffective. Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicants, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies available to them.        It follows that the applicants have not exhausted the remedies available to them under Czech law and that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Second Chamber       President of the Second Chamber         (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                        (H. DANELIUS)