CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 octobre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s52DEE8B1 { height:43.5pt } .s149E1CAE { border-style:solid; border-width:1pt 0.75pt 0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom; background-color:#ffffff } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sADC94CD6 { height:15pt } .s6B5C357D { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#ffffff } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s83C33279 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom; background-color:#ffffff } .sF88AB0A7 { height:15.75pt }     Communicated on 6 October 2015     FIFTH SECTION Application no 60702/11 DOMIRA, spol. s r.o. against the Czech Republic and 8 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS   The first applicant is a Czech limited liability company with its registered seat in Koněšín. The second applicant was born in 1934 and resides in Křtiny. The third applicant was born in 1968 and is currently serving his prison sentence in the Mírov Prison. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were or have been parties to civil proceedings. They have attempted to obtain redress in respect of the length of these proceedings before the domestic authorities on the basis of Act no. 82/1998. Further details can be found in the attached table. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention of the length of the civil proceedings to which they were or have been parties. They further allege, under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 or in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, or under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone, that the compensation proceedings under Act   no.   82/1998 were unreasonably long and did not provide them with appropriate redress.   QUESTIONS 1.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the length of the compensation proceedings (only their first set as regards the applications lodged by Mr Žirovnický) in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Under what conditions can parties to compensation proceedings under Act no. 82/1998 receive compensation also for the length of these proceedings (see, for instance, the decision of the Supreme Court of 30 September 2014, no.   30 Cdo 1098/2014)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 6 § 1 in respect of the length of the civil proceedings as required by Article 13 of the Convention, given the length of the compensation proceedings and the redress provided in them (see Vidas v. Croatia, no. 40383/04, § 37, 3 July 2008; Belperio and Ciarmoli v. Italy, no. 7932/04, §§ 50-56, 21 December 2010)?     APPENDIX   Application number Applicant’s name Application lodged on Case file no. Subject matter Action/claim lodged on Date of the final decision Length of the proceedings / levels of jurisdiction Outcome of the proceedings 60702/11 DOMIRA,spol.s r.o. 21 September 2011     12 C 1/95 (Ro 584/94) business dispute over approx. EUR 1,320 22 February 1994 30 September 2009 fifteen years and nine months four instances action against the applicant company essentially successful 26 C 244/2007 compensation for the length of the proceedings no. 12 C 1/95 2 October 2006 20 April 2011 four years and seven months four instances approx. EUR 2,750 received as compensation 59633/12 Meluzínová 12 September 2012 E 1106/97 enforcement proceedings 30 May 1997 6 September 2005 eight years and three months two instances settlement reached 26 C 259/2008 compensation for the length of the proceedings no. E 1106/97 2 April 2007 4 June 2012 five years and three months two instances approx. EUR 1,220 received as compensation 10092/13 Žirovnický 5 February 2013 37 C 51/2004 action against the State under the Civil Code 7 April 2004 15 April 2010 six years three instances action dismissed 17 C 204/2007 compensation for the length of the proceedings no. 37 C 51/2004 12 June 2007 24 April 2014 six years and ten months four instances finding of a violation, no financial compensation 20708/13 Žirovnický 13 March 2013 18 C 84/2006 action against the State concerning a home search 18 September 2003 pending pending pending 30 C 178/2009 compensation for the length of the proceedings no. 18 C 84/2006 8 June 2007 pending pending pending 22455/13 Žirovnický 26 March 2013 34 C 126/2004 action against the State concerning conduct of the Police 12 September 2003 31 August 2010 seven years three instances action dismissed 27 C 325/2007 compensation for the length of the proceedings no. 34 C 126/2004 6 June 2007 pending pending pending 61245/13 Žirovnický 11 September 2013 5 Ca 176/2004 (5 Ca 329/2006) administrative action against the State 14 October 2004 5 March 2009 four years and six months two instances action dismissed 26 C 58/2008 compensation for the length of the proceedings no. 5 Ca 176/2004 (5 Ca 329/2006) 10 October 2007 29 May 2013 five years and eight months four instances finding of a violation, no financial compensation 61482/13 Žirovnický 24 September 2013 10 Ca 10/2005 administrative action against the State 12 October 2004 21 May 2009 four years and seven months three instances action dismissed 19 C 85/2008 compensation for the length of the proceedings no. 10 Ca 10/2005 30 October 2007 pending pending pending 22520/14 Žirovnický 9 April 2014 10 C 49/2008 action against the State concerning taking a DNA sample 13 December 2007 pending pending pending 23 C 108/2012 compensation for the length of the proceedings no. 10 C 49/2008 21 December 2011 pending pending pending 13258/15 Žirovnický 11 March 2015 34 C 138/2006 action against a tabloid newspaper 6 November 2006 pending pending pending 15 C 184/2012 compensation for the length of the proceedings no. 34 C 138/2006 14 February 2012 18 December 2014 two years and ten months four instances finding of a violation, no financial compensation