CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 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 } .s867F9C1B { width:175.28pt; 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. 1836/04 by Josef HROMJÁK against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11   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 7 January 2004, 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, Mr Josef Hromják, is a Czech national who was born in 1934 and lives in Prostějov. He was represented before the Court by Mr   L.   Salaj, a lawyer practising in Prostějov. 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 29 April 1997 the applicant and his father lodged an action with the Jeseník District Court ( okresní soud ) seeking to determine the title to certain real estate. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. On 15 January 2007 the applicant applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended. In a letter of 22 February 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that his application had been accepted, that it had been found that his right to a determination of his civil claim within a reasonable time had been violated and that he had been awarded a sum of CZK 72,000 (EUR   2,769 [1] ) as just satisfaction. On 12 January 2007 the applicant informed the Registry that he had brought a civil action against the Ministry of Justice in the Prague 2 District Court ( obvodní soud ) under section 15(2) of Act no. 82/1998 as amended seeking to be paid CZK 428,000 (EUR 16,464) as a remainder of his compensation claims which had not been granted by the Ministry.   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 length of the above proceedings. THE LAW The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, provided in Article 6   §   1 of the Convention which 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 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 applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended on 15   January   2007 and was awarded CZK 72,000 (EUR 2,770) as just satisfaction by the Ministry of Justice. Not being satisfied with this amount, the applicant brought a civil action against the Ministry of Justice to the Prague 2 District Court, pursuant to section 15(2) of the Act, before which the proceedings seem to be still pending. 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 = 26.09 CZK