FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 31380/08
by Petr DĚDIČ
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 May 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Dean Spielmann, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Ann Power,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 June 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Petr Dědič, is a Czech national who was born in 1973 and lives in Týn nad Vltavou. He was represented before the Court by Ms K. Petrusová, a lawyer practising in Prague.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
I. Proceedings on the legality of the applicant’s dismissal from work
On 29 October 1999 the applicant, who was working as a car mechanic, was dismissed from his job with immediate effect for underperforming in his duties.
On 7 December 1999 he brought an action requesting the court to find the dismissal invalid and the work contract still in effect.
On 15 January 2001 the first hearing was held before the Prague District Court. As the parties failed to reach an agreement and requested a report concerning the service of the dismissal, the hearing was adjourned.
On 8 June 2001 the applicant asked the court to summon his father and grandfather as witnesses.
On 18 February 2002 he informed the court that he had changed his legal counsel.
On 15 April 2002 the judge of the District Court invited the applicant to indicate the whereabouts of the witnesses he had proposed to be heard. On 6 May 2002 the applicant provided the information.
On 25 June 2002 the České Budějovice District Court, whose assistance was requested because of its proximity to the witnesses, held a hearing and heard three witnesses.
On 18 October 2002 the applicant applied to supplement his action by claiming compensation for unpaid salary from November 1999 to May 2000.
On 26 November 2002 the applicant sent a letter to the president of the Prague District Court in which he complained that the court had not ordered a new hearing to conclude the proceedings.
On 12 December 2002 the vice-president of the Prague District Court apologised for the delays and explained that they were caused by, among other things, the workload of the judge, difficulties with obtaining the report from the post office, and the assistance of the České Budějovice District Court.
On 16 December 2002 the District Court rejected the applicant’s application to supplement his action.
On 6 January 2003 the applicant again complained to the presidents of the Prague District Court and the Prague Municipal Court about the length of the proceedings.
On 27 January 2003 the vice-president of the Municipal Court apologised to the applicant; however, he found his complaint justified only with regard to the period from January to July 2000.
On 27 March 2003 the District Court rendered a judgment in which it found the dismissal invalid as it had not been served in accordance with the Labour Code. The judgment was served on the applicant on 3 June 2003.
On 29 July 2003 a judge of the Municipal Court declined to rule on the defendant’s appeal as the District Court had not fully decided on the action.
On 3 October 2003 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining that the proceedings before the lower courts had been lengthy.
On 5 November 2003, following a hearing, the District Court supplemented the first judgment and determined that the work contract was still valid. The judgment was served on the applicant on 24 February 2004, following his complaint of 13 January 2004.
On 13 January 2004 the applicant supplemented his constitutional appeal.
On 11 March 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal. It held that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy but at that stage it would be unreasonable and redundant to interfere.
On 23 April 2004 the Municipal Court, following a hearing, upheld the first judgment and changed the supplementary judgment by holding that in the light of the wrongful dismissal the further validity of the working contract was self-evident.
On 2 and 7 July 2004 both parties filed an appeal on points of law.
On 28 June 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the second part of the judgment, remitted this issue to the Municipal Court and dismissed the remainder of the appeals.
On 15 November 2005 the Municipal Court, following a hearing, upheld the supplementary judgment of the District Court. The judgment became final on 13 January 2006.
2. Proceedings for damages
On 3 January 2007 the applicant claimed compensation under Law no. 82/1998 for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the above proceedings, which he evaluated at 300,000 Czech korunas (CZK) (approx. 10,925 euros (EUR)).
On 12 February 2007 the applicant supplemented his initial claim by asking for compensation for pecuniary damage incurred as legal costs.
In a letter of 17 September 2007 the Ministry of Justice acknowledged, referring to the case-law of the Court, that the proceedings, which had lasted more than six years, had been unreasonably lengthy and had suffered from administrative malpractice within the meaning of section 13 of Law no. 82/1998. The Ministry concluded, however, that the acknowledgment of the delays represented sufficient satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. As for pecuniary damage, the Ministry rejected the claim for lack of any causal link.
On 2 January 2008 the applicant brought a civil action for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage against the Ministry.
On 30 June 2008 the District Court dismissed the action finding that apart from during the period from January to July 2000 the courts had acted in reasonable time. The court further reasoned that labour disputes should be decided quickly owing to their consequences on the personal and social life of the claimants, but underlined that in the present case the invalidity of the dismissal had been pronounced already in May 2004. The overall length was only slightly beyond the appropriate length and thus the acknowledgement of the violation of the applicant’s right represented sufficient satisfaction.
On 27 January 2009 (served on 17 March) the Municipal Court upheld this judgment. It reiterated that, in the light of the actual complexity of the case, the length of the proceedings had been inappropriate but only to a small extent.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out in the Court’s decision in the case of Vokurka v. the Czech Republic ((dec.), no. 40552/02, §§ 11- 24, 16 October 2007).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings on the legality of his dismissal had been unreasonable.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which 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 Court notes that the applicant resorted, with regard to this complaint, to a compensatory remedy provided for in Law no. 82/1998 which was found effective by the Court (see Vokurka, cited above). On 17 September 2007 the Ministry of Justice, relying on the Court’s relevant case-law, acknowledged that the proceedings had been lengthy; however, it dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, finding that the acknowledgment of the delays constituted sufficient satisfaction. The District Court and the Municipal Court came to the same conclusion on 30 June 2008 and 27 January 2009 respectively.
The question arises whether the applicant can still claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that an applicant’s status as a “victim” depends on whether the domestic authorities acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the alleged infringement of the Convention and, if necessary, provided appropriate redress in relation thereto. As the Court has already held in other length-of-proceedings cases, the question whether a person has received reparation for the damage caused – comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention – is an important issue. It is the Court’s settled case-law that where the national authorities have found a violation and their decision constitutes appropriate and sufficient redress, the party concerned can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 71-72, ECHR 2006-V). One of the characteristics of sufficient redress which may remove a litigant’s victim status relates to the amount awarded as a result of using the domestic remedy. The Court has already had occasion to indicate that an applicant’s victim status may also depend on the amount of compensation awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (ibid., § 93). In particular, the Court accepted that a lower compensation might be awarded inter alia in case a State introduced remedies both to expedite proceedings and to afford compensation (ibid., § 97).
In the present case, the Court cannot overlook the fact that at the relevant time the Czech legislation did not provide for any acceleratory remedy (see Vokurka, cited above, § 57). Under these circumstances the mere acknowledgement of the delay by the domestic authorities may provide sufficient redress only in exceptional circumstances, notably when the applicant himself had substantially prolonged the proceedings (see, for example, Šedý v. Slovakia, no. 72237/01, §§ 90-92, 19 December 2006).
In view of the above and being unable to discern such exceptional circumstances in this case, the Court concludes that, having received no compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, the applicant did not lose his status as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The Court must therefore determine whether the proceedings in question complied with the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1.
The Court reiterates that in view of the variety of types of proceedings, there are no absolute criteria for determining the point at which the length of proceedings becomes excessive. Regard must be had to all the circumstances of the case, what is at stake for the parties, the complexity of the case and the conduct of the parties and any other persons acting independently of the court. The longer the proceedings as a whole or at one particular level of jurisdiction, the more pressing the obligation on the court to take steps to expedite or conclude them (see, among many other authorities, Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 65, ECHR 2006‑VII). The Court observes that a delay at some stage may be tolerated if the overall duration of the proceedings cannot be deemed excessive (see Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑VIII) and that, by their nature, employment disputes generally call for an expeditious decision (see Lipowicz v. Poland, no. 57467/00, § 34, 19 October 2004).
In the present case the Court notes that the proceedings were initiated on 7 December 1999 and completed on 13 January 2006, having thus lasted six years, one month and eight days before three levels of jurisdiction. In the Court’s opinion, the proceedings were not particularly complex. Indeed, the domestic courts only heard three witnesses and examined a written report, and the final outcome of the proceedings mainly relied on the determination of whether the service of the applicant’s dismissal had complied with the relevant law. Admitting that some delays occurred during the proceedings before the District Court, the Court observes however that the assistance of another first-instance court appeared necessary and that the Municipal Court and the Supreme Court dealt with the case expeditiously. As for the applicant’s conduct, the Court notes that the applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings to a certain extent. Indeed, he extended his action almost three years after it had been originally brought and did not sufficiently identify the witnesses he wanted to be summoned. In addition, he addressed the Constitutional Court although lodging the constitutional appeal was not an effective remedy for complaints concerning the unreasonable length of the proceedings (see Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, ECHR 2003‑VIII (extracts)). Finally, while acknowledging that what was at stake for the applicant in the proceedings was of crucial importance to him, taking into consideration that he sought reinstatement, the Court observes that the invalidity of the dismissal was pronounced already in May 2004.
Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court is unable to conclude, under the specific circumstances of the case, that the length of the proceedings lasting six years and one month before three levels of jurisdiction was unreasonable, despite the fact that certain delays had been acknowledged by the domestic authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Hampek v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 67171/01, 9 October 2007).
It follows that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekDean Spielmann
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy