CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 décembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s1CBBD6E0 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s28D23796 { width:20.54pt; display:inline-block } .s64C69EF9 { width:181.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 24788/03 by Bohumíra CVEKLOVÁ, Application no. 30793/03 by Radovan ZDRAŽÍLEK and Emílie ZDRAŽÍLKOVÁ, Application no. 1335/04 by Oldřich KONVIČKA, Application no. 1392/04 by Stanislav KAŠPAR, Application no. 6855/04 by Jindřiška KOŘÍNKOVÁ and Application no. 43635/04 by Věra MARKOVÁ against the Czech Republic       The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11   December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen, President,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova,   Mr   K. Jungwiert,   Mr   R. Maruste,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego,   Mrs   R. Jaeger,   Mr   M. Villiger, judges, and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above applications lodged on 1 August 2003 (no.   24788/03), 22 September 2003 (no. 30793/03), 17 December 2003 (no.   1335/04), 7 January 2004 (no. 1392/04) and 1 December 2004 (no.   43635/04) respectively, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the cases together, Having regard to the partial decisions of 7 March 2006 (no. 30793/03),   3 April 2006 (no. 1392/04) and 21 March 2006 (no. 43635/04), Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are: Ms Bohumíra Cveklová, born in 1934 and living in Prague (no.   24788/03); Mr Radovan Zdražílek and Ms Emílie Zdražílková, born 1928 and 1932 respectively, and living in Brno (no. 30793/03); Mr Oldřich Konvička, born in 1920 and residing in Buchholz, Germany, represented before the Court by Mr J. Šetina, a lawyer practising in Prague (no. 1335/04); Mr Stanislav Kašpar, born in 1952 and living in Kuřim (no. 1392/04); Ms Jindřiška Kořínková, who was born in 1929 and lived in Prague. She was represented by Mr Vladislav Petrů, a lawyer practising in Prague (no.   6855/04). By a letter received at the Court on 29 September 2005 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that on 14 July 2005 the applicant had died and that her four children wished to pursue the application in her stead; and Ms Věra Marková, born in 1944 and living in Prague (no. 43635/04). They are Czech nationals. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice. A.     The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Application no. 24788/03 by Bohumíra Cveklová In April 1988 an easement was established over the applicant’s property in favour of her neighbour. As the latter had reconstructed his house so that it encroached on the applicant’s land, on 31 March 1992, the applicant requested the Děčín District Court ( okresní soud ) to order him to allow the officers of the Centre of Geodesy entry onto his plot of land for a survey. On 2 November 1993 she lodged a new action seeking this time to clear the property. On 6 March 1995 the District Court stayed the proceedings initiated by the applicant in March 1992. It appears that the applicant’s action for the clearance of the property is currently pending before the national courts. Application no. 30793/03 by Radovan Zdražílek and Emílie Zdražílková On 4 February 1992 the applicants brought an action in the Brno Municipal Court ( městský soud ) for recovery of property which they had been forced to sell in 1973. It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the national courts. Application no. 1335/04 by Oldřich Konvička In 1976 the applicant left the former Czechoslovakia. On an unspecified date he acquired German citizenship. On 30 May 1977 the Olomouc District Court ( okresní soud ) convicted the applicant in absentia of deserting the Republic, sentenced him to two and a half years’ imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of all his property, including a plot of land in Slavonín. On 24 September 1990 the same court declared that, pursuant to the Judicial Rehabilitation Act, the applicant’s convictions and all ancillary decisions had been quashed with retrospective effect. On 9 March 1994 the applicant re-acquired Czech citizenship. On 13 December 1995 the Constitutional Court ( Ústavní soud ) abrogated the condition of permanent residence within the territory of the Czech Republic, laid down in the Land Ownership Act, for persons claiming restitution. On 8 February 1996 the Parliament adopted Act No. 30/1996, which amended the Land Ownership Act, setting a new deadline for the lodging of restitution claims by the persons concerned, i.e. those who had not, until 31 January 1993, satisfied the permanent residence condition. On 17 July 1996 the applicant lodged an action for restitution of the land which the District Court granted on 26 October 1999. In a judgment of 26   November 2002 the Ostrava Regional Court ( krajský soud ) modified the District Court’s judgment in that it dismissed the applicant’s restitution action finding that on the date of 31   December 1992, he had not satisfied the restitution requirements laid down by the Land Ownership Act. Actually, he was not a Czech citizen and did not reside permanently on the territory of the Czech Republic. The court held that the amendment of Act No. 30/1996 did not concern the applicant’s case. On 25 November 2004 the Supreme Court ( Nejvyšší soud ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. On 8 August 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal ( ústavní stížnost ) stating, inter alia , that on the date of 31 January 1993 (expiry of the time-limit for introducing restitution claims under the Land Ownership Act), the applicant had not been a Czech citizen and that the new time-limit set up in Act No. 30/1996 was not relevant in his case. Application no. 1392/04 by Stanislav Kašpar On 8 July 1988 the applicant brought an action in the Žďár nad Sázavou District Court ( okresní soud ), claiming damages for an injury he had sustained when working in uranium mines. On 13 February 2007 the District Court stayed the proceedings following the applicant’s withdrawal of his action filed on 11 January 2007. This decision became final on 16 March 2007. Application no. 6855/04 by Jindřiška Kořínková 1.     On 23 April 1970 the applicant was dismissed from her work following a   breach of the rules of work discipline. On 10 June 1970 she filed an action against her employer seeking to declare her dismissal null and void. It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the Czech courts. Application no. 43635/04 by Věra Marková On 19 May 1998 the applicant lodged an action for unjust enrichment against a private building company with the Prague 2 District Court ( obvodní soud ). It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the national courts. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the Court’s decision in the case of Vokurka v. Czech Republic , no.   40552/02 (dec.), §§   11-24, 16   October 2007). COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the above proceedings. The applicant in application no. 1335/04 also alleged a violation of his property rights. THE LAW 1. The Court first considers that, under Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common legal background. 2. The applicants complained about the excessive length of the above proceedings which, according to them, was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, so far as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal.” The Government noted that the applicants could have resorted to the compensatory remedy provided for by Act no. 82/1998. The applicants did not wish to use this remedy. The Court has already examined that remedy for the purposes of Article   35 §   1 of the Convention and found it effective in respect of certain complaints about the length of judicial proceedings in the Czech Republic. In particular, it considered that the remedy was capable of providing adequate redress for any breach of the reasonable time requirement that has already occurred (see Vokurka v. Czech Republic , cited above, §§   58-65). However, the applicants despite having been informed by the Court of the possibility of using this remedy maintained that they should not be required to exhaust such a remedy. It thus appears that they have chosen not to avail themselves of this remedy. The Court therefore considers that the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Their length complaints must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article 35 §§ 4 of the Convention. 3. The applicant in application no. 1335/04 also alleged a violation of his property rights. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that these complaints must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 4. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to reject the applications. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President