CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 29 janvier 2008

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s8AB83B9 { width:147.82pt; display:inline-block } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sDB6B63EE { width:176.94pt; 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. 24846/03 by TOMA, S. R. O. against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 29   January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Snejana Botoucharova,   Karel Jungwiert,   Rait Maruste,   Javier Borrego Borrego,   Renate Jaeger,   Mark Villiger, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 July 2003, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant company, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Toma, s.r.o. is a private company registered in the Czech Republic. It was represented before the Court by Mr Petr Pisarovič, a lawyer practising in Břeclav. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 27 May 1991 a certain D. brought a civil action against the Racio cooperative, the applicant’s predecessor. By a judgment of 27 August 1991 the Břeclav District Court ( okresní soud ) dismissed D.’s action. On 14   February 1992 the Brno Regional Court ( krajský soud ) upheld this judgment. On an unspecified date in 1992 the applicant company joined the proceedings as one of successors of the Racio cooperative. On 17 January 1994 the Prague High Court ( Vrchní soud ), upon D.’s appeal on points of law ( dovolání ) quashed the judgments of the lower courts and sent the case back to the District Court for further consideration. On 11 February 1997 the District Court suspended the proceedings on the ground that other proceedings were pending before the same court which could have had an impact on the present proceedings. On 16   March   1998 the Regional Court quashed this decision and sent the case back to the District Court which, on 6 September 2000, again decided to suspend the proceedings. On 31 August 2001 the Regional Court quashed this decision.   By a judgment of 9 April 2003 the District Court delivered a judgment on the merits of Mr D.’s action. On 20 April 2005 the Regional Court decided on the applicant company’s appeal.   B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the allegedly excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out in the Court’s decision in the case of Vokurka v. Czech Republic , no.   40552/02 (dec.), §§   11-24, 16   October 2007). COMPLAINT   The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time. THE LAW The applicant company complained about the excessive length of the proceedings which, according to it, 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 applicant company could have resorted to the compensatory remedy provided for by Act no. 82/1998. 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. The Court also specified that the applicants whose claims for damages had not been granted by the Ministry of Justice or had been only partly granted, had to file a civil action against the State before competent courts in order to exhaust domestic remedies in this respect (see Vokurka v. Czech Republic , cited above, §§   58-65). Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the applicant company applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended on 14 August 2006 and that the compensation proceedings seem to be still pending. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant company has not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The application must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article   35 §   4 of the Convention. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to reject the application. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President