CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 mars 2006

.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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .s15C14C6D { width:213.44pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 43635/04 by Věra MARKOVÁ against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21   March 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Ms   D. Jočienė ,   Mr   D. Popović, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 December 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Věra Marková, is a Czech national who was born in 1944 and lives in Prague. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 19 May 1998 the applicant lodged an action for unjust enrichment against a private building company with the Prague 2 District Court (o bvodní soud ). She claimed that the defendant had used her plots of land without paying rent. On 2 August 1999 the applicant supplemented and extended her action. On 17 September 2000 a surveyor, having carried out an inspection of the site on 10 September 2000, drew up a report. On 25 July 2001 and 11 March 2002 respectively, the District Court ordered that other inspections of the site be carried out on 26   October 2001 and 22   May 2002 respectively. On 12 January 2004 the applicant partly withdrew her action and modified the remaining part of it. The applicant having alleged, on 5 May 2004, bias of the expert commissioned to value the property in question, the District Court invited her to substantiate the objection on 12 May 2004. Two hearings were held before the District Court on 4 June 2004 and 18   October 2005, respectively. In the meantime, on 5 January 2005, an expert audit report had been drawn up. On 4 February 2005 the applicant had presented her comments. It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the court of first instance. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complains that the proceedings have lasted an unreasonably long time. 2. She further complains that her property rights were impaired by an unauthorised use of her property by the defendant, which refused to provide her with any financial compensation. She asserts that her property was damaged and its value depreciated due to its illegal occupation by the defendant. THE LAW 1. The applicant first complains about the length of the proceedings. The Court considers that her complaint should be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, so far as relevant, provides: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a   fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ....” The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government. 2. The applicant further alleges a violation of her property rights. Her complaint raises an issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which states:   “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.   The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” The Court notes that the proceedings initiated by the applicant in May 1998 have not yet been terminated. Hence, the applicant’s property rights remain uncertain and her complaint to the Court is premature. This part of the application must therefore be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 Convention relating to the length of the proceedings; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President