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 } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; 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. 36095/03 by Jaromír KUDRNÁČ 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 11 May 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, Mr Jaromír Kudrnáč, is a Czech national who was born in 1922 and lives in Náchod. He was represented before the Court by Mr   F.   Kollman, a lawyer practising in Náchod. On 27 November 2003 the applicant died. By a letter of 1 April 2005 the late applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that his late client’s wife Mrs Ludmila Kudrnáčová wished to pursue the application in his stead. 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 March 1992 the applicant lodged a restitution action with the Strakonice District Court ( okresní soud ). By a judgment of 8 September 1993, the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. On 18 February 1994 the České Budějovice Regional Court ( krajský soud ) partly upheld and partly modified the first instance judgment. On 2   October 1997 the Supreme Court ( Nejvyšší soud ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law ( dovolání ). On 5 February 1998 the applicant filed a constitutional appeal ( ústavní stížnost) through the District Court. However, the constitutional appeal never reached the Constitutional Court. On 27 November 2003 the applicant died. On 6 September 2006 the late applicant’s wife applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended. She claimed CZK 34,741,000 (EUR 1,343,145 [1] ) in respect of pecuniary damage, CZK 1,000,000 (EUR   38,662) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and CZK 50,000 (EUR   1,933) in respect of fees incurred in the proceedings before the national courts. In a letter of 30 October 2006 the Ministry of Justice informed the deceased applicant’s widow that her compensation claim for non-pecuniary damage was statute-barred, the proceedings having terminated in the High Court’s decision of 2   October 1997. The Ministry specified that under section 27(2) of the Constitutional Court Act, the proceedings before the Constitutional Court commence on the day on which the constitutional appeal is submitted to the court. Having regard to the fact that her late husband had filed his constitutional appeal through the District Court, the constitutional proceedings had never been instituted and, therefore, could not be pending before the Constitutional Court as she argued. Moreover, the Ministry found unsubstantiated the widow’s compensation claims in respect of pecuniary damage and court fees. 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). COMPLAINTS   1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. 2. He further complained that he had not had any effective remedy at his disposal. THE LAW 1. The Court notes at the outset that the applicant has died and that his widow has informed it that she wishes to continue with the proceedings. The Court has in a number of cases acceded to similar requests that have been made by close relatives of deceased applicants to continue with the proceedings (see, among other authorities, X v. France , judgment of 31   March 1992, Series A no. 234-C, § 26). In line with that practice, the Court holds that the deceased applicant’s widow has standing in the present case to continue the proceedings in his stead . 2. The applicant complained that the length of the above proceedings had been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which provides, in so far as relevant: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal.” The Government objected that the application had been lodged outside the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant disputed the Government’s argument. In their complementary observations, they submitted that the applicant could have resorted to the compensatory remedy provided for by Act no.   82/1998. Even assuming that the application was introduced within the six-month time-limit as provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court recalls that it 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 late applicant’s widow applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended on 6 September 2006, but her compensation complaint was dismissed for being statute-barred. The applicant’s widow did not introduce an action to the court under section 15(2) of the Act. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. This part of the application must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article   35 §   4 of the Convention. 3. The applicant also complained that he had no effective domestic remedy at his disposal. He relied, in substance, on Article 13 of the Convention, which provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” The Court has already found that Act no. 82/1998 as amended does provide the applicants with an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about the length of the proceedings. That finding is valid in the context of the complaint under Article 13 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 application. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President   [1] 1 EUR = 25.91 CZK