CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 4 mars 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s8AB83B9 { width:147.82pt; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 38384/03 by Hana LANGROVÁ against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4   March   2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Snejana Botoucharova,   Karel Jungwiert,   Rait Maruste,   Renate Jaeger,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 November 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, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Hana Langrová, is a Czech national who was born in 1966 and lives in Brno. She was represented before the Court by Mr   J.   Pernica, a lawyer practising in Brno. 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 28 August 1995 the applicant lodged an action with the Brno Municipal Court ( městský soud ) claiming the separation of the marital property. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. On 25 July 2006 the applicant applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended. She claimed CZK 165,535 (EUR 6,409 [1] ) in respect of pecuniary damage and expenses incurred in the judicial proceedings and CZK 500,000 (EUR 19,358) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In a letter of 9 January 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that her application had been accepted, that it had been found that her right to a determination of their civil claim within a reasonable time had been violated and that the applicant had been awarded a sum of CZK   105,000 (EUR 4,065) in respect of non-pecuniary damage she might have sustained. The Ministry refused, however, the applicant’s claim regarding compensation for pecuniary damage. On 18 January 2007 the applicant informed the Registry that she did not intend to turn to a court under section 15(2) of Act no. 82/1998 as amended. 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 complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. THE LAW The applicant complained about the excessive length of the above proceedings which, according to her, 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 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 cases, the Court observes that the applicant applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended on various dates on 25 July 2006. On 9 January 2007 the Ministry of Justice awarded her CZK 105,000 (EUR 4,065). While the applicant did not find the amount awarded to her satisfactory, she did not file the civil action which was open to her under section 15(2) of Act no. 82/1998 as amended. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant 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   [1] 1 EUR = 25.93 CZK