FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 17467/04
by Hana GÁBOROVÁ
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 24 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 May 2004,
Having regard to the Court’s decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention) and,
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, Mrs Hana Gáborová, is a Czech national who was born in 1941 and lives in Liberec. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. 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.
In 1954 the applicant’s parents sold their real estates to a certain P. The sale contract is, according to the applicant, invalid, because the State allegedly did not consent to this transaction, P. did not occupy the estates and did not pay the purchase price. Since the applicant’s parents did not seem to be willing to re-occupy the property, this fell into State ownership.
I. Proceedings on the nullity of the sale contract (no. 20 C 67/94)
On 13 January 1994 the applicant filed an action against J.P. and M.P. seeking to declare the sale contract null and void.
On 22 August 1994 the Liberec District Court (okresní soud) discontinued the proceedings following the applicant’s withdrawal of her action. The court’s decision became final on 5 October 1994.
II. Proceedings on the nullity of the sale contract (no. 20 C 1210/94)
On 3 October 1994 the applicant filed an action against J.P., M.P. and J.P.jr seeking to declare the sale contract null and void.
On 18 October 1994 the District Court discontinued the proceedings following the applicant’s withdrawal of her action. The court’s decision became final on 19 January 1996.
III. Proceedings on the determination of property rights (no. 20 C 1604/95)
On 26 October 1995 the applicant brought proceedings against M.P. seeking to determine her property rights to the real estates which had belonged to her parents.
On 17 August 2000 the District Court discontinued the proceedings upon the applicant’s withdrawal of her case. The decision became final on 24 October 2000.
IV. Proceedings on the determination of property rights (no. 20 C 129/96)
On 6 February 1995 the applicant brought new proceedings seeking to determine her property rights to the real estates, this time against M.P. and J.P.jr.
On 17 August 2000 the District Court discontinued the proceedings upon the applicant’s withdrawal of her case. The decision became final on 21 September 2000.
V. Restitution proceedings
On 13 January 1999 the applicant brought a number of actions for recovery of the property.
On 10 January 2000 the District Court decided to deal with the actions separately.
i) Restitution proceedings no. 20 C 60/2000
On 17 August 2000 the applicant withdrew her restitution action brought against M.P. The proceedings were discontinued on the same day. The District Court’s decision delivered in this respect became final on 24 October 2000.
ii) Restitution proceedings no. 20 C 61/2000
The applicant’s action brought against the Hunting Association Mlýnice (Myslivecké sdružení Mlýnice) was originally sent as a supplement to her action registered under no. 20 C 129/96 (see above).
On 10 January 2000 the proceedings were severed for separate consideration and decision.
The proceedings terminated in a decision of the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (krajský soud) of 14 June 2005 which became final on 22 June 2005.
iii) Restitution proceedings no. 20 C 62/2000
The applicant’s action brought against the Nová Ves Municipality (Obec Nová Ves) was originally sent as a supplement to her action registered under no. 20 C 129/96 (see above).
The proceedings were severed and terminated on 11 October 2005.
iv) Restitution proceedings no. 20 C 63/2000
The applicant’s action brought against the Liberec Land Funds (Pozemkový fond) was originally sent as a supplement to her action registered under no. 20 C 129/96 (see above).
The proceedings were severed and terminated in a decision of the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) of 12 December 2006.
v) Restitution proceedings no. 20 C 64/2000
The applicant’s action brought against the Forestry of the Czech Republic (Lesy České republiky) was originally sent as a supplement to her action registered under no. 20 C 129/96 (see above).
The proceedings were severed and terminated in a decision of the Regional Court of 31 March 2005 which became final on 14 April 2005.
vi) Restitution proceedings no. 15 Ca 457/93
On 20 May 1993 the Liberec Land Office (pozemkový úřad) rejected the applicant’s claim for restitution of her parents’ property. In a judgment of 11 November 1993 the Regional Court upheld the administrative decision. The judgment became final on 16 December 1993.
On 27 February 2007 the applicant filed a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) which the Constitutional Court rejected as having been introduced outside the sixty-days’ statutory time-limit on 22 March 2007.
VI. Proceedings on the determination of the applicant’s inheritance (no. 20 C 1085/2000)
On 21 August 2000 the applicant filed an action against M.P. to establish that the latter’s property should be included in the applicant’s inheritance.
The proceedings were discontinued on 15 December 2000, the applicant having not complied with the District Court’s request to rectify certain shortcomings in her action. The decision became final on 12 January 2001.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the 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).
COMPLAINTS
Invoking Article 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (right to a fair hearing) and alleging a violation of her property rights, the applicant complained that the proceedings had been unreasonably long, that the courts had not examined all relevant facts and that the property concerned had never been legally transferred to P., remaining in her parents’ ownership from whom it had been expropriated. She asserted that her parents had been persecuted by the communist regime and had left the property under pressure. She further claimed that she had been denied the right to be heard by the Land Office which had decided in camera. Lastly, she complained that lawyers who had been assigned to her had not defended her rights properly.
THE LAW
1. The applicant first 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 Court observes that the applicant’s complaints relates to the length of different sets of proceedings.
i. It agrees with the Government that the proceedings described under the headings I., II., III., IV., V.i. and VI. ended on 5 October 1994, 19 January 1996, 24 October 2000, 21 September 2000, 24 October 2000 and 12 January 2001 respectively. This is, however, more than six months before the date on which the present application was submitted to the Court (5 May 2004). The Court also considers that the same applies to the proceedings described under the head V.vi. in which the final decision, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, was adopted by the Regional Court on 11 November 1993. The decision of the Constitutional Court taken on 22 March 2007 could not postpone the running of the six months’ time-limit, the applicant’s constitutional appeal being rejected a limine.
Thus, this part of the application has been submitted too late and must be rejected it in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
ii. The Court further observes that the restitution proceedings V.ii., V.iii., V.iv. and V.v. began on 13 January 1999 and ended on 22 June 2005, 10 October 2005, 12 December 2006 and 14 April 2005, respectively.
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 on 2 August 2007 that her claim for compensation filed on 25 February 2007 was partly time barred and partly unsubstantiated, did not provide evidence that she filed the civil action which was open to her under section 15(2) of Act no. 82/1998 as amended.
In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. This part of the application must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
2. As regards the applicant’s remaining complaints, in the light of all the material in its possession the Court considers that they did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that these complaints must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention as being manifestly ill-founded.
3. In view of the above, it is appropriate to reject the application.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy