FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 21588/04
by Marek DVOŘÁK
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 29 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Snejana Botoucharova,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Javier Borrego Borrego,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 June 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 applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Marek Dvořák, is a Czech national who was born in 1982 and lives in Ustí Nad Labem. He was represented before the Court by his mother, Ms J. Vacková. 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 28 November 1989, the Ústí nad Labem District Court (okresní soud) ordered the applicant’s father to pay monthly alimony of CZK 400 (EUR 15.30[1]) to his mother.
On 27 November 1992 the applicant’s mother, acting on behalf of her son, requested the court to increase the monthly alimony to be paid for her son’s needs. In January 1994 the applicant’s father stopped paying the alimony. On 24 January 1996 the applicant’s mother renewed her request to increase the monthly alimony.
On 16 May 2000 the applicant reached the age of majority and could, therefore, act before the court in person.
On 23 July 2003 the District Court obliged the applicant’s father to pay, within three days of the coming into force of the judgment, the outstanding alimony in the amount of CZK 250,800 (EUR 9,592) which covered the period from 1 January 1994 to 31 July 2003, finding that this was necessary to ensure the upbringing of the applicant. On 29 August 2003 it rectified the amount of the outstanding alimony to CZK 157,800 (EUR 6,035).
On 3 December 2003 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (krajský soud), upon the applicant’s appeal of 15 October 2003, amended the District Court’s judgment ordering the applicant’s father to pay, within three days of the coming into force of the judgment, CZK 179,400 (EUR 6,861), being the outstanding alimony for the period from 1 January 1994 to 30 November 2003.
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
The applicant complained about the length of the court proceedings, in particular those before the District Court. He further complains that the national courts did not decide fairly when establishing his father’s income.
THE LAW
1. The applicant first complained about the excessive length of the proceedings which, according to him, was 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).
Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the applicant applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended on 10 October 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. His complaint about the length of the proceedings must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicant further complained that the national courts did not decide fairly when establishing his father’s income.
The Court recalls that, under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law.
In the present case, the applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged unfairness of the proceedings was not brought before the Constitutional Court. In any event, it is not for the Court to decide whether the facts were correctly established and whether national law was interpreted by the national courts properly.
This part of the application must therefore be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 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 WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
[1] 1 EUR = 26.18 CZK
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy