FIFTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 27907/03
by Miloslav FOREJT
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 1 April 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 25 August 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 partial decision of 3 April 2006,
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 Miloslav Forejt, is a Czech national who was born in 1937 and lives in Plzen. 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 14 May 1996 the applicant brought an action before the Plzeň-město District Court (okresní soud) against the State claiming damages under the State Liability Act. He referred to two allegedly incorrect and unlawful expert medical opinions drawn up by experts in psychiatry without having sufficiently examined the applicant’s condition. The action was notified to the court on 16 May 1996.
It appears that the proceedings for damages are still pending.
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 that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time.
THE LAW
The applicant complained of the length of the proceedings which, according to him, is 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 applicant did not wish to use this remedy.
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 (see Vokurka v. Czech Republic, cited above, §§ 58-65).
However, the applicant despite having been informed by the Court of the possibility of using this remedy maintained that he should not be required to exhaust such a remedy. It thus appears that he has chosen not to avail himself of this remedy.
The Court therefore considers that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The remainder of the application must therefore be declared inadmissible.
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 remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy