Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)89
Bořánková and Hartman and 69 other cases against the Czech Republic
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
(See Appendix for the list of cases)
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 29 May 2013 at the 1171st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established;
Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)327);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases; and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Appendix – list of cases
Application
Case
Judgment of
Final on
41486/98
BOŘÁNKOVÁ
07/01/2003
21/05/2003
53341/99
HARTMAN J. AND J.
10/07/2003
03/12/2003
18010/06
ANTONI
25/11/2010
25/02/2011
3331/02
BAČÁK
07/03/2006
07/06/2006
50262/99
BARTL
22/06/2004
22/09/2004
6019/02
BAZIL
11/04/2006
11/07/2006
58358/00
BEČVÁŘ AND BEČVÁŘOVÁ
14/12/2004
14/03/2005
22771/04
CAMBAL
21/02/2006
21/05/2006
65189/01
CENTRUM STAVEBNÍHO INŽENÝRSTVÍ, A.S.
21/12/2004
21/03/2005
50073/99
CHADIMOVÁ
18/04/2006
26/04/2007
18/07/2006
24/09/2007
26739/04
DOSTÁL
21/02/2006
21/05/2006
52859/99
DOSTÁL
25/05/2004
10/11/2004
30276/03
DUŠEK
14/02/2006
14/05/2006
65191/01
EKO-ENERGIE, SPOL. S R.O.
17/05/2005
17/08/2005
35883/02
FÁBER
17/05/2005
30/11/2005
65192/01
FACKELMAN ČR, SPOL. S R.O
26/10/2004
26/01/2005
7051/06
GOLHA
26/05/2011
26/08/2011
76343/01
HAVELKA
02/11/2004
02/02/2005
28009/03
HAVLÍČKOVÁ
14/02/2006
14/05/2006
32853/03
HERBST AND OTHERS
12/04/2005
12/07/2005
20551/02
HEŘMANSKÝ
04/04/2006
04/07/2006
43772/02
HESKÁ
23/05/2006
23/10/2006
75375/01
HOUBAL
14/06/2005
14/09/2005
58177/00
HOUFOVÁ NO. 1
15/06/2004
10/11/2004
58178/00
HOUFOVÁ NO. 2
15/06/2004
10/11/2004
76802/01
HRADECKÝ
05/10/2004
02/02/2005
66448/01
JAHNOVÁ
19/10/2004
19/01/2005
65195/01
JÍRŮ
26/10/2004
26/01/2005
71545/01
KARASOVÁ
30/11/2004
28/02/2005
19621/02
KLEPETÁŘ
21/02/2006
03/07/2006
45107/98
KOKTAVÁ
02/12/2003
14/06/2004
47269/99+
KONEČNÝ
26/10/2004
30/03/2005
77530/01
KOŘÍNEK AND OTHERS
11/04/2006
11/12/2006
75546/01
KOS
30/11/2004
28/02/2005
30940/02
KOZÁK
18/04/2006
18/07/2006
50248/99
KRÁLÍČEK
29/06/2004
29/09/2004
28661/03
KUBIZŇÁKOVÁ
21/06/2005
21/09/2005
64750/01
L.C.I.
07/06/2005
07/09/2005
48446/99
LIBÁNSKÝ
22/06/2004
22/09/2004
8153/04
MARŠÁLEK
04/04/2006
04/07/2006
38194/02
METZOVÁ
18/04/2006
18/07/2006
70861/01
MLYNÁŘ
13/12/2005
12/04/2006
35888/02
NEMETH
20/09/2005
20/12/2005
14881/02
PACHMAN AND MATES
04/04/2006
04/07/2006
25326/03
PATERA
26/04/2007
24/09/2007
76250/01
PATEROVÁ
14/09/2004
14/12/2004
12605/02
PATTA
18/04/2006
18/07/2006
27145/03
PEDOVIČ
18/07/2006
11/12/2006
58116/00
PFLEGER
27/07/2004
15/12/2004
73578/01
PIŠTOROVÁ
26/10/2004
26/01/2005
15377/02
POLACH
25/10/2005
12/04/2006
20252/03
RÁZLOVÁ
28/03/2006
28/06/2006
65196/01
ŘÍMSKOKATOLICKÁ FARNOST OBŘÍSTVÍ
24/05/2005
24/08/2005
48568/99
SCHMIDTOVÁ
22/07/03
03/12/03
73516/01
ŠIMONOVÁ
18/07/2006
11/12/2006
71551/01
ŠKODÁKOVÁ
21/12/2004
21/03/2005
21377/02
SKOMA, SPOL. S R.O.
14/02/2006
14/05/2006
27911/02
SLEZÁK AND OTHERS
11/10/2005
11/01/2006
75455/01
TARIQ
18/04/2006
18/07/2006
37400/06
TESAR AND OTHERS
09/06/2011
09/09/2011
29054/03
TETOUROVÁ
27/09/2005
27/12/2005
14044/04
THON
13/12/2005
13/03/2006
77762/01
VITÁSEK
02/11/2004
30/03/2005
15741/02
VOJÁČKOVÁ
04/04/2006
04/07/2006
63627/00
VOLESKÝ
29/06/2004
10/11/2004
70847/01
VOLF
06/09/2005
06/12/2005
65291/01
VRÁBEL AND ĎURICA
13/09/2005
13/12/2005
70846/01
VRÁNA
30/11/2004
28/02/2005
16226/04
ZÁMEČNÍKOVÁ AND ZÁMEČNÍK
21/03/2006
21/06/2006
32455/02
ZBOŘILOVÁ AND ZBOŘIL
18/04/2006
18/07/2006
8768/03
ZOUHAR
11/10/2005
11/01/2006
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
in cases against the Czech Republic where a violation of the right to a hearing
within a reasonable time was established
Action report submitted in its consolidated version by the government
on 14 March 2013
In 71 judgments, including Bořánková v. the Czech Republic (No. 41486/98, 7 January 2003) and Hartman v. the Czech Republic (No. 53341/99, 10 July 2003), the European Court of Human Rights found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, while in the Hartman case, as well as in some others, it also established a violation of Article 13 of the Convention due to an absence of an effective domestic remedy against excessive length of judicial proceedings.
The government hereby submits to the Committee of Ministers a comprehensive action report on the general and individual measures adopted for the execution of groups of judgments, the Bořánková group and the Hartman group, summarising information submitted in the last few years; this report offers a picture of the current status in the area of the length of proceedings and (not only) the respective compensatory remedy in the Czech Republic.[1]
I. INtroduction
A considerable part of this report deals with general measures adopted for the execution of the respective judgments.
Since the above-cited Bořánková judgment was delivered, the government has been endeavouring to eliminate the identified discrepancy between the domestic practice and the Court’s case law.
In the following parts of this report, the government will rely on a decision on the admissibility of application Vokurka v. the Czech Republic (No. 40552/02, 16 October 2007), in which the implemented compensatory remedy for excessive length of proceedings was found effective. The report will also briefly mention the preventive remedy that the Court did not find to be effective but that the government subsequently harmonised with the Court’s case law.
The government will also discuss the unifying opinion of the respective Division of the Supreme Court, dated 13 April 2011, which relies on the Court’s case law in the domain of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Simultaneously with the implementation of the domestic compensatory remedy, the government is, through the Ministry of Justice, working hard on measures to expedite court proceedings. In the report of 2 October 2009, the government informed the Committee of Ministers about the Justice Reform Concept for 2008-2010, which contained strategies aimed at removing delays from proceedings. It can be noted that the objectives of the concept, which aimed at building an effective, flexible, inexpensive and qualified justice system, are being met. A summary of the most important measures that have been adopted with a view to making the justice system’s working more effective and to expediting court proceedings, will be presented in Part III hereof, together with a vision of additional changes.
The government will also deal with the Justice Ministry’s monitoring activity in the supervising of the speed and effectiveness of court proceedings. In conclusion, some statistics, mainly documenting average duration of court proceedings over the years 2005-2011 and those concerning compensatory proceedings, will be provided.
Finally, the government deals with the individual measures adopted for the execution of the respective judgments in section VI of this report.
II. COMPENSATORY REMEDY FOR UNREASONABLE LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS
The compensatory remedy for unreasonable length of proceedings was introduced, with effect from 27 April 2006, by Act No. 160/2006, which amended Act No. 82/1998, on Liability for Damage Caused in the Exercise of Public Authority.
In the pilot decision in the above-cited Vokurka case, the Court acknowledged the effectiveness of the compensatory remedy for unreasonable length of proceedings, which remedy needs to be exhausted, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, prior to complaining to the Court about unreasonable length of the domestic proceedings.
In the substantiation of its decision, the Court assessed whether or not the two newly introduced remedies against violations of the right to a hearing of the matter in a reasonable time were effective and therefore must be exhausted before the applicant may resort to the Court.
The first of these remedies is, as of 1 July 2004, a motion lodged with the courts for the imposition of a time limit for performing a procedural act under Section 174a of Act No. 6/2002, on Courts and Judges. However, this preventive remedy was not found to be effective by the Court.[2] The government responded to the Court’s criticism of this remedy, and with effect from 1 July 2009 amended Section 174a of Act No. 6/2002 (Act No. 7/2009).[3] The Court considered this change favourably in its judgment in Macready v. the Czech Republic (Nos. 4824/06 and 15512/08, 22 April 2010, § 51)[4] and in its judgment in Bergman v. the Czech Republic (No. 8857/08, 27 October 2011, §§ 48 and 49).[5]
The other pivotal remedy the effectiveness of which the Court has scrutinised is the application for just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage under Act No. 82/1998, as amended by Act No. 160/2006. In this respect the Court concluded, on the basis of information provided by the government about the functioning of this remedy over the first approximately eight months from its introduction, that this was an effective remedy. The Court however expressly voiced its concern that the decision making on the granting of just satisfaction may take too long, because the Ministry of Justice decides on the application in the first place, and then a court, against the decision of which an appeal, and subsequently an appeal on a point of law and a constitutional appeal, are permissible.
The Court applied its conclusions to the case of the applicant Vokurka and unanimously concluded that since the applicant had failed to file with the Ministry of Justice an application for compensation for non-pecuniary damage, although he could have done so under the transitional provision of Article II of Act No. 160/2006, his complaint about unreasonable length of the proceedings was inadmissible for the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
In relation to the Vokurka decision, the Court has clarified in its later case law that it is appropriate to require applicants to bring an action against the Czech Republic before the competent court in the event of a dispute over the amount of damages granted by the Ministry of Justice or if the Ministry of Justice does not grant any damages (see, for example, Andělová v. the Czech Republic, No. 995/06, judgment of 28 February 2008, § 77).[6]
However, although its tenor was favourable for the Czech Republic, the decision in the Vokurka case implied that additional measures should be adopted for improving the situation, which the government has done as it is evident from this report.
In the first place, the length of the examination of applications for damages by the Ministry of Justice and also by ordinary courts constitutes a threat to the effectiveness of the procedural protection against unreasonable length of court proceedings. In the second place, an insufficient amount of damages granted may cast some doubt on the effectiveness. The Court’s case law has revealed some other potential pitfalls in the amendment to the law on liability for damage (the rather problematic transitional provision in Act No. 160/2006).
A. LENGTH OF COMPENSATORY PROCEEDINGS
The Court returned to the issue of the compensatory proceedings themselves, or the exhaustion of extraordinary remedies and possibly also the speed of the payment of damages granted, in its decisions in Najvar v. the Czech Republic (No. 8302/06, 3 March 2009), Uher v. the Czech Republic (No. 45566/04, 2 September 2008) as well as in its judgment in Golha v. the Czech Republic (No. 7051/06, 26 May 2011, § 50), and concluded that it was usually necessary to apply to at least the first two judicial instances for compensation for non-pecuniary damage in proceedings on an action under the law on liability for damage.
In the context of the Golha judgment, cited above, § 73, the Court was of the view that under the specific circumstances of the case, the excessive length of the compensatory proceedings did not render the remedy under the law on liability for damage incompatible with Article 13 of the Convention, all the more once the applicant was provided compensation for this delay from a domestic court.
The government is intent on reducing the length of compensatory proceedings. With a view to simplifying and shortening compensatory proceedings, on 13 April 2011 the College of the Supreme Court adopted an opinion (for details please see below) which also constitutes guidance for the calculation of damages.
A positive change in respect of the length of compensatory proceedings can be read from the Justice Ministry’s analyses. Since November 2010, all applications for out-of-court compensation, but for rare exceptions caused mainly by delays on the part of the applicants or their lawyers (for example, failure to respond to a request to complete the application or to produce a power of attorney), have been handled within the set six-month time limit. Practice has brought about acceleration as regards the lending of court files for the handling of applications for damages.
Beginning January 2012, the statistical data collected by the Ministry of Justice include the length of compensatory court proceedings. Until 2012 this figure could have only been estimated from the practice of the Ministry of Justice. It appears that on average, such proceedings, including those on an appeal, took a year and a half.
B. AMOUNT OF SATISFACTION AWARDED
It can be inferred from the Court’s case law (see, for example, Apicella v. Italy, No. 64890/01, judgment [GC] of 29 March 2006) that the Court would not regard as manifestly unreasonable amounts of approximately 45% of the amounts that the Court itself awards in such cases. Detailed rules for the calculation of amounts of just satisfaction are contained in the Justice Ministry’s Manual for the Application of the Law on Liability for Damage, dated May 2006, which was intended for internal purposes. Now, however, the instructions for the calculation of the amount are contained in the above-mentioned opinion of the Supreme Court’s College.
In respect of the amount of the satisfaction awarded per application in out-of-court proceedings at the domestic level it can be noted that this amount has increased since 2007 (for more details please see this report’s section on statistics) and appears to be proportionate to the Court’s case law.
The Court expressed a favourable view of the amount of the damages granted by the State, for example, in the cases of Jelínek and Pánek v. the Czech Republic (No. 8412/03, decision of 22 January 2008) or Miko v. the Czech Republic (No. 9832/03, decision of 22 January 2008). In the above-cited Uher decision, the Court also considered the amount of damages to be sufficient.
The Court also examined the effectiveness of the domestic remedy for unreasonable length of proceedings, in terms of the amount of compensation granted, in the above-cited Golha judgment. Unlike the above-cited decisions, the Court did not consider the amount awarded by domestic authorities to be adequate in view of the criterion for loss of victim status under the circumstances of the case.
Despite some specific cases that were found by the Court to be at variance with the Court’s case law (which are, however, quite incommensurable with the cases in which the effectiveness of the compensatory remedy was upheld), the government is of the opinion that the compensatory remedy is functioning in practice. However, absolute effectiveness of this remedy cannot be achieved; the government notes that in the domain of Article 13 of the Convention, the Court’s case law does not require certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant but only reasonable prospects for success. In the cases under review, this criterion has been met.
C. THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISION OF ACT NO. 160/2006
In its judgment in Antoni v. the Czech Republic (No. 18010/06, 25 November 2010, § 35), the Court subjected to criticism the transitional provision contained in Act No. 160/2006, which fails to cover a certain category of persons damaged by unreasonable length of proceedings. The Court also arrived at the same conclusion that the applicants did not have sufficient room for exhausting the newly introduced compensatory remedy, having less than the standard six-month time limit for raising their claim in comparison with those whose proceedings were concluded only after the entry of the amendment into force, in its judgment in Tesař v. the Czech Republic (No. 37400/06, 9 June 2011). The Court also communicated to the government two other applications pointing to the same problem, one of them was struck out and the other declared inadmissible.[7]
Because of the relatively narrow focus of the Court’s conclusion on a violation of the right to an effective domestic remedy, there is no need to adopt any general remedial measures, since the case in question basically involved a historical problem caused by the imperfect drafting of the transitional provision contained in Act No. 160/2006. Although additional similar cases may, in theory, appear before the Court there is no need to adopt any measures pro futuro.
D. OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT’S COLLEGE
On 13 April 2011, the Civil and Commercial College of the Supreme Court, which is called to monitor and evaluate courts’ final decisions, adopted an opinion on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the law on liability for damage (under File Ref. Cpjn 206/2010) for the purpose of unifying ordinary courts’ decision‑making practice in connection with the assessment of the overall length of proceedings and the adequate amount of reasonable satisfaction.
The Supreme Court’s very extensive and meticulously substantiated opinion, relying on the Court’s case law and also practical examples (domestic courts’ specific decisions), can be briefly summarised as follows.
In line with the Vokurka decision, cited above, the Supreme Court notes that care should be taken that compensation for unreasonable length of proceedings is awarded quickly and in a sufficient amount, i.e., that it is unacceptable to incur delays in compensatory proceedings.
The Supreme Court expressed its view on certain points that are decisive for the correct assessment of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings and, at the same time, the amount of damages.
In the introduction, it discusses the determination of the beginning and end of the proceedings the length of which is to be assessed. It reiterates the well-known facts, to wit, that account also needs to be taken of the part of the proceedings which was running prior to the coming of the Convention into force for the Czech Republic, and also the part of the proceedings in which the legal predecessor of the person who has entered into the proceedings, in the position of a party to the proceedings as the predecessor’s heir, appeared, where this person is now seeking just satisfaction. The Supreme Court dedicates the next part of its opinion to reflections on the stay of proceedings and the consequences thereof for the assessment of the overall length of the proceedings, and on the criteria of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings under the Court’s case law.
A considerable section of the opinion focuses on the assessment of the amount of satisfaction, putting forth that a mere holding that a right was violated is not sufficient in most cases and that monetary satisfaction needs to be accorded. It also mentions the option of commuting the sentence in connection with unreasonable length of criminal proceedings. It notes that in reflections on the award of just satisfaction, account should be taken of the aggregate time for which the proceedings lasted rather than the time for which delays occurred. Just satisfaction can also be accorded when the proceedings the length of which was found unreasonable have not yet been concluded with finality. For juristic persons, the amount of just satisfaction need not always be lower than for natural persons.
In the event of proceedings in which multiple parties seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the unreasonable length of the proceedings appeared, the amount of damages awarded to each of the parties can be, depending on the circumstances, proportionally reduced compared with the amount that would have been awarded to the injured party if this party alone was involved in the proceedings on one side. The Supreme Court makes a comparison of the amounts of just satisfaction for unreasonable length of proceedings with the amounts accorded at the domestic level for other types of damage, for example, damage to health, or damage related to the death of a relative.
The Supreme Court thoroughly analyses the calculation of satisfaction together with an assessment of its amount, which is based on a basic amount, determined as a product of the overall length of proceedings in years or months and the amount accorded per unit of time of the proceedings, with the subsequent addition or subtraction of an amount reflecting the effect of the circumstances arising from the criteria contained in the law on liability for damage. It deals with the option, or necessity, to increase the amount of just satisfaction in the event of long proceedings on compensation.
III. changes to the domestic law
The following parts of this report very briefly summarise the most important measures that have already been adopted with a view to making the justice system’s work more effective and to expediting court proceedings. The government has extensively informed the Committee of Ministers about most of these measures in their previous reports. The government will also mention the forthcoming legislative changes.
The extensive amendment to the Rules of Civil Procedure, enacted by Act No. 7/2009, has, since 1 July 2009, reduced delays in court proceedings by simplifying procedure (for example, the recording of court hearings, reduced scope of the substantiation of some of courts’ decisions), by introducing the concept of ‘the preparatory hearing’, and, primarily, by introducing a brand new effective method of service (‘the mandatory address for service’ of parties to the proceedings); in addition, taken together with Act No. 300/2008, on Electronic [Official] Acts and Authorised Document Conversion, it introduced, as the priority method of the service of process, electronic delivery to data mailboxes.
The government outlined the amendment to the law on courts and judges, concerning Section 174a, in the foregoing.
Changes in the method of the working of courts, such as court Mini Teams and broader powers for justices’ clerks, which relieve judges of unnecessary burden, also help to expedite court proceedings. In this respect, the legal basis is Act No. 121/2008, on Justices’ Clerks and Public Prosecutors’ Clerks, which, with effect as of 1 July 2008, newly defines the scope of the tasks that hitherto had been carried out by judges and public prosecutors and transfers some of these tasks to justices’ clerks and public prosecutors’ clerks.
On 1 October 2008 there was also a change in the system of proceedings on judges’ disciplinary transgressions, which is intended to permit genuinely independent and objective decision making on disciplinary transgressions, which also include unjustifiable delays in the handling of cases assigned to judges.
A major leap forward is the extensive digitalisation of the justice system (for example, the ePodatelna [e‑MailRoom] project, the ePlatební rozkaz [e-CourtOrderToPay] application, and the infoSoud [infoCourt] and infoJednání [infoHearing] projects).
An extensive amendment to the Execution Rules (promulgated as Act No. 286/2009),[8] came into force on 1 November 2009. This amendment transfers the administrative agenda from courts to bailiffs/enforcement officers, which is connected with the new powers reposed in bailiffs/enforcement officers. As in the above cases, the objective here was to expedite the entire proceedings. Already the petition itself for the ordering of execution is addressed directly to the bailiff/enforcement officer rather than the execution court. It is precisely the bailiff/enforcement officer who examines whether or not the entitled person’s petition contains all the essential details required, and only then will he send the petition to the execution court.
The effort to reduce the length of court proceedings and alleviate the burden on ordinary courts continues. The focus is currently on the law on mediation, to help shorten civil proceedings, an amendment to the law on arbitration,[9] which together with the Supreme Court’s case law results in a greater transparency and simplification of these proceedings, and an amendment to the Code of Administrative Justice,[10] the purpose of which is to expedite proceedings before administrative courts. The amendment mainly brings changes in the proceedings on cassation appeals, which will be transferred as a whole to the Supreme Administrative Court.
The work on the digitalisation of the justice system continues; the objective is to introduce the electronic file (known as an eSpis [eFile]) for all types of court proceedings.
IV. SUPERVISION BY THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
The Ministry of Justice, which monitors, assesses and analyses the work of justice authorities, plays a considerable role in the pursuance of the objectives of the above-outlined reform. Tighter supervision helps to reduce the length of proceedings and, in particular, the number of the oldest pending cases.
But with one exception, the domestic proceedings in respect of which the Court has held a violation of the right to a hearing in a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention have been concluded with finality. The only pending proceedings continue to be monitored. For more information see this report’s section VI on individual measures.
As regards the statistical investigation of the various types of proceedings, in 2012 it also included the length of compensatory court proceedings, as mentioned above.
In addition to statistical investigation, the Ministry of Justice also conducts inspections at courts. It usually focuses on courts or areas that appear to be problematic on the basis of statistical investigation. In the event of finding a shortcoming, the Ministry can initiate disciplinary proceedings with the particular judge, or order the president of the court to carry out certain specific supervisory measures.
In 2010, an inquiry was conducted into the oldest pending cases at six courts with the largest number of cases older than five years. Similar inquiries also continued at some other courts in the second half of 2011. The second half of 2011 saw an inquiry into the oldest outstanding civil cases at 14 district courts and it continued at other courts in 2012.
Decisions on provisions for minor children are an area to which continuous attention is devoted. In 2010, an inquiry with this focus was conducted at three courts, in the first half of 2011 at another four courts, and it continued in 2012.
Since bankruptcy/receivership proceedings are the most frequent cause of what are often multi-year stays of civil proceedings, the Ministry of Justice also devotes attention to them on a regular basis and at least one regional court is subjected to a check every year.
In 2010, a check of the appeals agenda of the Brno Regional Court was made and in the first half of 2011 a follow-up check took place because of the delays that had been identified.
Further, checks of proceedings on admitting to or keeping individuals in health care facilities and checks of proceedings on legal capacity were carried out at selected district courts; these inquiries will continue in the future.
As a follow up on the extensive and comprehensive inquiry into cases older than five years at courts of the North Bohemian Circuit, which was conducted in 2009, a follow-up inspection took place at another two courts. The first half of 2011 saw a similar inquiry at all district courts of the South Moravian Circuit.
A review of the duration of labour disputes was one of the main tasks in 2012.
V. STATISTICS
A. ON COMPENSATORY PROCEEDINGS
Table 1 shows the data on the numbers of applications filed with, and disposed of by, the Ministry of Justice because of unreasonable length of proceedings.
To illustrate the increase in the amounts awarded in satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage, the government submits figures on the average amount of satisfaction awarded per application in 2007 and in 2011 (as at 30 June 2011). In 2007, the figure was CZK 83,515, while in 2011 it was CZK 85,121. In 2007, the average amount of satisfaction for one year of proceedings per application[11] was CZK 8,436, and in 2011 it was CZK 9,784. The average amount of satisfaction for one year per applicant was CZK 6,986 in 2007 and CZK 8,457 in 2011.
Table 1: Filed and disposed of applications for out-of-court compensation[12]
Year
Number of applications filed
Number of applications disposed of
2007
2,168
1,430
2008
1,072
1,481
2009
973
1,417
2010
968
1,270
2011*
909
713
*On 30 August 2011
B. ON OTHER TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS
Tables 2 and 3 indicate the average length of various types of proceedings that were concluded with finality in each particular year between 2005 and 2010 and in the first half of 2011, and also the number of these cases and their distribution in percentage terms in time bands by length, while we have a comparison between 2008 and 2010 at our disposal.
Table 2 suggests that following the reform of the commercial justice system, between 2006 and 2010 the average length of proceedings was shortened by 396 days; proceedings were therefore reduced by 48% on average. At the same time, when comparing 2008 and 2010, the number of disputes disposed of in two months increased by 8%, while the number of disputes lasting for two and more years was reduced by 13%.
A comparison of the lengths of civil cases stricto sensu[13] in 2005 and 2010 reveals that this type of proceedings was shortened by 173 days on average, i.e., by 39%. At the same time, Table 3 shows the appreciable and positive change in the proportions, in percentage terms, of the disputes handled in each of the periods of time.
The government would note with moderate optimism that in the first half of 2011 the length of labour disputes was 575 days on average, i.e., the shortest since 2005. Since 2008, the duration of labour disputes has therefore been shortened by 143 days, i.e., 20%.
In the light of the government’s above measures, a certain improvement in labour disputes can be seen from Table 3, in particular when focusing on the number of disputes lasting for less than a year: in 2010, 60% of labour disputes were concluded with finality within that period of time, as against 2008 when the figure was 51% of labour disputes. In 2010, the number of labour disputes lasting for two or more years also dropped compared with 2008, specifically by 9%.
As mentioned above, in 2012 the Ministry of Justice focused on inspections of labour disputes.
Compared with 2005, in 2010 the average length of private law proceedings concluded with finality decreased by 140 days (from 452 to 312 days), and compared with 2006 the lengths had been shortened by 225 days on average, i.e., 42%, by 2010. In 2010, approximately 78% of cases were disposed of with finality in one year, and 93% in two years.
Between 2005 and 2010, guardianship proceedings were shortened by 35 days on average, i.e., 17%. The average length of criminal proceedings, from the service of the accusation to the finality of the decision, was 319 days in 2008 and 289 days in 2010.
It is obvious that the average length of proceedings before Czech courts has decreased over the past few years. Continued attention will have to be devoted to the length of court proceedings in sensitive areas such as labour disputes and, among them, disputes over compensation for damage caused by occupational injury or disease, and also disputes between parents over the situation of minor children. Another such area is bankruptcy/receivership proceedings, which continue to be among the longest court proceedings. Globally viewed, however, the length of proceedings is shortening, and the number of outstanding cases is also decreasing.
Table 2: Average length of proceedings from the day of incidence[14] to the day of finality, in days
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011*
Commercial cases
448
822
793
721
507
426
397
Civil proceedings[15]
448
439
392[16]
416
302
275
257
Labour disputes
606
602
709
718
669
607
575
Private law proceedings[17]
452
537
494[18]
499
362
312
298
Guardianship proceedings[19]
211
199
192
178
177
176
173
Criminal proceedings
not monitored[20]
not monitored[21]
324
319
301
289
276
*First half of 2011
Table 3: Distribution of res adjudicata cases in 2008 and 2010
Less than 2 months
2 – 6 months
6 – 12 months
12 – 24 months
24 and more months
Total number of cases
Commercial cases
2008
8,2%
18,8%
24,6%
22,2%
26,2%
77 543
2010
16,2%
32,7%
22,8%
15,2%
13,1%
133 485
Civil proceedings
2008
6,4%
24%
31,9%
25%
12,7%
220 998
2010
17,4%
35,0%
26,0%
15,0%
6,5%
449 120
Labour disputes
2008
2,7%
23,6%
24,2%
20,1%
29,4%
4 960
2010
5,0%
28,8%
26,3%
19,2%
20,5%
4 978
Private law
proceedings
2008
6,8%
22,7%
29,9%
24,2%
16,4%
303 501
2010
17,0%
34,4%
25,3%
15,0%
8,1%
587 583
Guardianship proceedings
2008
14,2%
57,7%
18,1%
7%
3%
166 604
2010
7,4%
57,4%
19,1%
7,0%
2,2%
146 718
Criminal
proceedings
2008
55,9%
19,9%
13,4%
10,8%
102 129
2010
60,7%
18,7%
11,2%
9,3%
95 268
VI. Individual measures
In 70 of the 71 cases concerned the domestic proceedings at issue were concluded. In the case of Slezák and others v. the Czech Republic (No. 27911/02, judgment of 11 October 2005) the domestic proceedings are still pending before the national courts.
As mentioned in section IV of this report the proceedings not terminated stay under constant supervision by the Ministry of Justice which quarterly requests information from the respective presidents of the domestic courts on the actual state of the proceedings pending before them.
The presidents of the domestic courts are also urged to accelerate the proceedings whose length was found to be unreasonable by the Court and to terminate them as soon as possible.
The just satisfaction awarded has been paid to the applicants.
No other individual measures appear necessary.
VII. CONCLUSION
The Government of the Czech Republic concludes that all the necessary measures to execute the Hartman and Bořánková groups of the Court’s judgments have been taken.
[1] This report was submitted to the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers on 2 October 2009 and in a substantially amended version on 6 January 2012. Since then, the report has been amended twice in some aspects.
[2] The Court held that although the motion under Section 174a of the Law on Courts and Judges had been adopted with the intention of providing for a preventive remedy against an unreasonable length of proceedings, this motion was not an effective remedy because the use of this motion was conditional on the prior lodging with the president of the court of a complaint about delays in the proceedings. According to the Court, the motion for the imposition of a time limit for performing a procedural act was therefore no more than an extension of hierarchical appeal, which the Court had found in the past to be an ineffective remedy.
[3] The amendment explicitly lays down that a motion for the imposition of a time limit for making a procedural act is not conditional on the lodging of a hierarchical appeal. The amendment has also made it possible for the court to, and in respect of, which delays in proceedings are pleaded to perform, within 30 days of the filing of a motion for imposing a time limit, all the procedural acts which the party lodging the motion claims to be delayed. Should that party nevertheless be dissatisfied, he can, within three days of the performance of the required acts, declare that he insists on his motion. The normal procedure is then followed to make a decision on this, i.e., the motion is escalated to a higher court.
[4] Although these legislative changes could not have had any influence on the applicant’s situation in the case at hand.
[5] But the Court noted that the government had not submitted any example of a decision showing specifically how this remedy, intended to expedite proceedings, was functioning. Thus, it was not proved that this procedural remedy was effective, at the relevant time, both in theory and in practice, i.e., that it was capable of providing the applicant with redress for the violations claimed by him and had a reasonable chance of success. In addition, the legislative changes as of 1 July 2009 could not have had any impact on the applicant’s situation in the case in question.
[6] And also, among many others, for example, Kafka v. the Czech Republic, No. 918/04, No. 925/04, no. 1211/04 and No. 3146/04, decision of 11 March 2008, and Zdráhalová v. the Czech Republic, No. 15501/03, decision of 4 March 2008.
[7] Applications No. 33307/06 Obrátilovi v. the Czech Republic and No. 30073/06 Hanzl and Špadrna v. the Czech Republic, respectively.
[8] Act No. 120/2001, on Bailiffs and Enforcement Officers and Execution Activity (‘Execution Rules’) and on Changes to Certain Other Laws, as amended.
[9] Act No. 216/1994, on Arbitration and the Execution of Arbitral Awards, as amended.
[10] Act No. 150/2002, Code of Administrative Justice, as amended.
[11] It should be noted on the numbers of applications that two situations can emerge in cases where multiple persons lodge an application. If each of the applicants has a different address of residence, each applicant is recorded as one application. Other times, one submission filed by multiple applicants (in particular where all applicants have the same address of residence) is actually recorded as a single application.
[12] See footnote 11.
[13] For the composition of this group see footnote 15.
[14] In criminal proceedings, the first day is the day on which criminal prosecution was commenced or the day on which suspicion was notified.
[15] This group of proceedings includes disputes under the family law and the law on registered partnerships, claims for damages under the Civil Code, disputes arising from lease of flats and residential space, disputes arising from other types of lease (commercial space, real properties, and other things), disputes over ownership, disputes over the rights provided for in the Civil Code, other disputes of a civil nature and governed by separate regulations, property restitution proceedings, and enforcement of intellectual property rights.
[16] In 2007, the statistics were distorted by almost 18,000 disputes over television/radio licence fees, lasting for 108 days on average. Should we take into account approximately 4,500 of such disputes, i.e., a number comparable with 2008, the average length of proceedings would be 410 days in comparison with 416 days for 2008.
[17] This group includes the three previously mentioned groups, i.e., commercial matters, civil proceedings, and labour disputes.
[18] See footnote 16. An adjusted average length of proceedings would be 513 days.
[19] This group includes proceedings on custody and measures intended for the upbringing of children, proceedings on foster care, institutional care, and protective rehabilitation [of juveniles], proceedings on parental responsibility, contacts between parents and children, and contacts between children and their grandparents and siblings, proceedings on adoption, proceedings on maintenance, and proceedings on the determination and denial of paternity.
[20] Until 2006, the whole length of criminal proceedings within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention was not monitored. The length of criminal proceedings was monitored in the same way as the length of other types of proceedings, i.e., from the day of incidence of the case on the competent court. In 2005 and 2006, the length of proceedings so monitored was 263 and 250 days, respectively.
[21] See footnote 20.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy