FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 82/04
by Günter ENKE
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 December 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 Günter Enke, is a German national who was born in 1943 and lives in Leipzig (Germany). He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Kyjovský, a lawyer practising in Brno. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice. The Government of Germany did not make use of their right to intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention).
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 December 1993, during his stay in the Czech Republic, the applicant’s car was damaged by a snow excavator.
On 30 December 1996 the applicant filed a motion seeking the issuance of a payment order and an action for damages with the Trutnov District Court (okresní soud) against the Pec pod Sněžkou Municipality (Město Pec pod Sněžkou), the Pec pod Sněžkou Services (Služby města Pec pod Sněžkou) and the owner of the excavator.
The proceedings terminated on 22 December 2004 on the date on which a judgment of the District Court of 12 March 2004 became final.
On 20 July 2006 the applicant applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended. He claimed EUR 1,800 in respect of fees and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings.
In a letter of 5 March 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that his application had been accepted, that it had been found that his right to a determination of his civil claim within a reasonable time had been violated, but that the length of the proceedings did not justify a financial compensation. The Ministry refused also the applicant’s claim regarding compensation for pecuniary damage.
On 21 March 2007 the applicant informed the Registry that he did not intend to turn to a court under section 15(2) of Act no. 82/1998 as amended.
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)
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that the length of the above proceedings had been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which provides, in so far as relevant:
“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 as amended.
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 been dismissed 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, after having been informed by the Ministry of Justice that the length of the proceedings had not justified any financial compensation, did not file the civil action which was open to him under section 15(2) of Act no. 82/1998 as amended.
With regard to the refusal of the claim in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the losses alleged by the applicant have not been substantiated and that there is no causal link between the excessive length of the proceedings and the damage alleged.
In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
The application must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy