CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 mai 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 } .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 } FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 22781/03 by Jan ROUB against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 6   May   2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Karel Jungwiert,   Volodymyr Butkevych,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 July 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 Jan Roub, is a Czech national who was born in 1951 and lives in Plzeň. 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.   i. Proceedings for damages   In October 1992 the applicant created a private school of traffic education (called the “Private School of Traffic Education, Morals and Ethics in Road Traffic). According to him, the State ran a similar education program called the “Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety” and, consequently, liquidated “by fraudulent means of an unfair economic competition” the activities and educational programs of the private school. On 14 April 1997 the applicant decided to issue proceedings for damages against the Ministry of the Interior. The proceedings terminated by a decision of the Constitutional Court ( Ústavní soud ) of 20 October 2004.   ii. Criminal proceedings   On 10 December 1999 the applicant was charged with two offences of assault on public authority. By a judgment of 24 October 2003 the Plzeň-town District Court ( obvodní soud ) found the applicant guilty. On 13 January 2004 the Plzeň Regional Court ( krajský soud ) upheld this judgment. On 28 July 2004 the Supreme Court ( Nejvyšší soud ) quashed the lower courts’ judgment and declared the applicant non-guilty. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the Court’s decision in the case of Vokurka v. Czech Republic , no.   40552/02 (dec.), §§   11-24, 16   October 2007). COMPLAINTS   Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the length of the above proceedings. Relying on Article 17 of the Convention, he complained that the State had abused its rights in order to keep the monopoly for the state institution using the unfair economic competition. In his reply to the Government’s observations, the applicant maintained that the national authorities had also violated Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 13 and 17 of the Convention. According to him, these allegations had already been mentioned in his application form. THE LAW 1. The applicant first complained of the length of the proceedings which, according to him, 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 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). In the present case, the Court observes that the applicant applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended on 13 July 2006 and that the compensation 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. This part of the application must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article   35 §   4 of the Convention. 2. The Court has also examined the complaints submitted by the applicant under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 13 and 17 of the Convention. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as this complaint falls within its competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 3 and 4 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