Published on 16 March 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 19736/25
FINART S.R.O.
against the Czech Republic
lodged on 30 June 2025
communicated on 24 February 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns compensation proceedings initiated by the applicant company to recover approximately 860,000 euros as a pecuniary damage allegedly caused by the excessive length of the preceding civil proceedings. Those civil proceedings lasted from February 2001 until December 2009, during which time the applicant company was unable to sell the real estate at issue. This inability to dispose of the property allegedly resulted in lost profits and the continued obligation to pay real estate tax.
In the compensation proceedings, which lasted for over twelve years, the courts acknowledged that the civil proceedings had been excessively long. However, they refused to award any amount of pecuniary damage. As a result of a case-law development occurring in course of the proceedings, the appellate court shifted its position concerning the date relevant for assessing the value of the real estate which was determining for the existence and amount of the pecuniary damage. The applicant company then failed to satisfy the burden of proof in relation to the changed date. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant company’s constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded by decision no. II. ÚS 3383/23, delivered on 27 March 2025.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant company complains that the domestic courts’ decisions refusing to grant it compensation for the pecuniary damage caused by the excessive length of the preceding civil proceedings were arbitrary and unforeseeable, and that the compensation proceedings themselves were excessively long.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
With regard to the domestic courts’ refusal to grant the applicant company pecuniary compensation for the acknowledged excessive length of civil proceedings, has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1? In particular:
- In light of the appellate court’s shift in legal position, did the applicant company have a reasonable opportunity to present its case (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 200, ECHR 2006-V)?
- Was the length of the compensation proceedings reasonable (see Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 209-211, 27 June 2017)?