CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 3 avril 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s24AFA639 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2A429DC4 { width:201.96pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 1392/04 by Stanislav KAŠPAR against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3   April   2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger, judges , and Ms C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 January 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows:   THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Stanislav Kašpar, is a Czech national who was born in 1952 and lives in Kuřim. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 8 July 1988 the applicant brought an action before the Žďár nad Sázavou District Court ( okresní soud ), claiming damages for an injury he had sustained when working in uranium mines. In a judgment of 5   May 1989 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. This judgment was quashed on 13 September 1989 and the case was remitted to the District Court which, on 19   August 1991, again decided against the applicant. On 6 March 1995 the Regional Court, following the applicant’s appeal filed on an unspecified date, quashed the judgment of the District Court and sent the case back to it for further consideration. By a judgment of 6 February 1996 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action for damages. On 5 May 1997 the Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal, quashed this judgment and remitted the matter to the District Court which dismissed the applicant’s action in its judgment of 21 March 2000. Following the applicant’s appeal, the Regional Court quashed, once again, the District Court’s judgment on 1 October 2002. The matter was remitted to the first instance court which, on 19 April 2005, dismissed the applicant’s action for damages for the fifth time. On 3 June 2005 the applicant appealed to the Regional Court, before which the case remains pending. COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his case has not been dealt with fairly and within a reasonable time. THE LAW 1.   The applicant complains that the proceedings for damages have lasted unreasonably long. He alleges a violation of Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention.   The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. 2.     To the extent that the applicant complains under the same provision that he did not have a fair hearing, the Court notes that the proceedings complained of are still pending before the Regional Court. Accordingly, the applicant’s complaint about their unfairness is premature. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the proceedings for damages; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President