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 } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; 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. 2048/04 by Blanka BLAŽKOVÁ and Jiří BOHUSLAV 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,   Volodymyr Butkevych,   Rait Maruste,   Mark Villiger ,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges , and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 August 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 applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mrs Blanka Blažková and Mr Jiří Bohuslav are two Czech nationals who were born in 1946 and 1938 respectively, and live in Prague. They were represented before the Court by Mr S. Křeček, a lawyer practising in Prague. 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. In 1995 the applicants’ mother brought proceedings against a private company seeking the payment of CZK 1,290,000 (EUR 50,185 [1] ). On 19   December 1995 the Prague 5 District Court ( obvodní soud ) granted the claimant’s action. As the defendant had not complied with the judgment, the applicants’ mother claimed the enforcement of the sum which the company owed her. In the meantime the company had sold a house to P.P. and O.P. On 4 September 1996 the District Court ordered execution of the judgment, prohibiting P.P. and O.P. to pay CZK 1,000,000 (EUR 38,903) which they still owed to the company as an outstanding part of the purchase price. The execution proceedings remained unsuccessful. On 19 May 1997 the applicants’ mother filed an action against P.P, O.P. and the company seeking to declare that the purchase contract concluded between the defendants was null and void in respect to her. She requested, at the same time, to adopt an interim measure to prohibit the P.P. and O.P. from disposing of the house. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. 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   Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the length of the civil proceedings. THE LAW The applicants complained of the length of the proceedings which, according to them, is 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). In their observations in reply to those of the Government, the applicants maintained that they would intend to turn to the Ministry of Justice in order to use the new domestic remedy. As the applicants have not informed the Court about the stage of the compensation proceedings, the Court considers that they have not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The application must therefore be declared inadmissible. 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 = 25.80 CZK