CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .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. 4990/04 by Irena BARTEČKOVÁ and Josef DZIERŽENGA against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18   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 29 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 applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Ms Irena Bartečková and Mr Josef Dzierženga, are Czech nationals who were born in 1930 and 1943 respectively and live in Bohumín. 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 25 October 1993 the applicants brought an action in the Ostrava District Court ( okresní soud ) for reinstatement and recovery of real estates which were used by the State Fishing Enterprise without any legal title. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. On 2 October 2006 the applicants applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended. They claimed CZK 820,000 (EUR 31,810 [1] ) respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. In a letter of 31 January 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed them that their application had been accepted, that it had been found that their right to a determination of their civil claim within a reasonable time had been violated and that they had been awarded a sum of CZK 144,000 (EUR   5,602) in respect of non-pecuniary damage they might have sustained. The Ministry refused, however, the applicants’ claim regarding compensation for pecuniary damage. On 9 June 2007 the applicants informed the Registry that they would introduce a civil action under section 15(2) of Act no. 82/1998 as amended. Moreover, in a letter of 6 November 2007, they notified the Registry that they had brought proceedings for compensation for pecuniary damage before the Ministry of Justice. 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. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the length of the civil proceedings. 2. They further invoked Article 13 as no effective domestic remedy had been available for their complaints about the delays in proceedings. THE LAW 1. The applicants first 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 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 case, the Court observes that the applicants applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended on 2   October 2006 and that the compensation proceedings seem to be still pending before the competent court. Moreover, their request for compensation for pecuniary damage remains undecided before the Ministry of Justice. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Their complaint concerning the length of proceedings must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article   35 §   4 of the Convention. 2. The applicant also complained that he had no effective domestic remedy at his disposal, as required under 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. 3. 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