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 } .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 } .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. 45180/04 by Marta KORANDOVÁ and others 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 12 July 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, Ms Marta Korandová, Mr Stanislav Sedlatý, Ms Marie Prášilová, Ms Blažena Hrušovská, Ms Jarmila Junová and Ms Manuela Krausová, were six Czech nationals born in 1935, 1924, 1926, 1933, 1944 and 1994 respectively. They reside in Hejnice, Lázně Libverda, Jablonec nad Nisou, Frýdlant and Liberec, respectively. 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. The applicants’ mother owned a share in an agricultural cooperative in Lučany. On 12 August 1993 she died. On 11 May 1995 bankruptcy proceedings concerning assets of the cooperative were instituted before the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court ( krajský soud ). On 30 October 1995 the Liberec District Court ( okresní soud ) approved an agreement on the distribution of the assets of the applicants’ mother, including her share in the cooperative, among her heirs. The decision became final on 21 February 1996.   It appears that the bankruptcy 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   The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the bankruptcy 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). However, the applicants maintained that they should not be required to exhaust such a remedy. It thus appears that they have chosen not to avail themselves of this remedy. The Court therefore considers that the applicants 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