FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 6053/03
by Drahomíra HABERLANDOVÁ and Radomír PUR
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 February 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, président,
Snejana Botoucharova,
Karel Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 February 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 applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Drahomíra Haberlandová and Mr Radomír Pur, are Czech nationals who were born in 1948 and 1951 respectively, and live in Zábřeh na Moravě. 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 1 March 1994 a certain P. (hereinafter “the plaintiff”) brought in the Šumperk District Court (okresní soud) a civil action against the first applicant and other persons seeking to termination and settlement of their joint ownership of immovable property and to creation of an easement.
On 8 February 2000 the District Court delivered a meritorious judgment against which the plaintiff appealed. On 17 January 2002 the Ostrava Regional Court (krajský soud) did not allow the latter’s partial withdrawal of his action. The District Court’s judgment thereby became partially final.
In a judgment of 8 July 2002 the Regional Court quashed the remaining part of the first instance judgment and remitted the relevant part of the case to the District Court which, on 4 November 2003, split for a separate hearing the plaintiff’s request to create an easement to the property and decided on the merits of his action.
On 1 February 2005 the Regional Court upheld the meritorious part of the first instance judgment and modified it in respect of fees and expenses.
On 14 June 2006 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal on points of law (dovolání).
On 18 July 2006 the applicants applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended. They claimed CZK 54,829 (EUR 2,086[1]) in respect of pecuniary damage. The second applicant further claimed CZK 100,000 (EUR 3,805) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants finally claimed CZK 14,669 (EUR 558) in respect of fees incurred in the proceedings before the national courts.
In a letter of 15 January 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed them that their application had been accepted, that it had been found that their right to a determination of their civil claim within a reasonable time had been violated and that the second applicant had been awarded a sum of CZK 100,000 (EUR 3,805) in respect of non-pecuniary damage he might have sustained. The Ministry refused, however, the applicants’ claim regarding compensation for pecuniary damage and court fees.
On 24 July 2007 the applicants informed the Registry that they 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 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).
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which 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 applicants could have resorted to the compensatory remedy provided for by Act no. 82/1998.
The Court recalls that, by virtue of Article 1 of the Convention, the primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing the guaranteed rights and freedoms is laid on the national authorities. The machinery of complaint to the Court is thus subsidiary to national systems safeguarding human rights (Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).
The Court further recalls that an applicant’s status as a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention depends on the fact whether the domestic authorities acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the alleged infringement of the Convention and, if necessary, provided appropriate redress in relation thereto. Only when these conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 71, ECHR 2006-V).
Bearing in mind the fact that the Ministry of Justice acknowledged that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that the first condition laid down in its case-law, namely acknowledgment by the authorities of the infringement of a right protected by the Convention, has been satisfied.
As regards the second condition, that is appropriate redress from the authorities for the wrong suffered, the Court must determine whether the sum awarded can be considered sufficient to make good the alleged damage and breach (Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004).
With regard to the refusal of the claim in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the losses alleged by the applicants have not been substantiated, either at domestic level or in the proceedings before it, and that there is no causal link between the excessive length of the proceedings and the damage alleged.
As regards compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the Court observes that according to its case-law that term refers to the anxiety, inconvenience and uncertainty caused by the alleged violation, and other non-pecuniary loss (Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV, cited above, § 29).
In the light of the material in the file and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the sum awarded to the second applicant can be considered sufficient and appropriate redress for the violation suffered. The Court thus considers that the decision of the Ministry of Justice was consistent with the Court’s case-law. It therefore concludes that the second applicant can no longer claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention of the alleged violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
The Court further considers that as the first applicant did not submit any claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage, she has not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 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
[1] 1 EUR = 26.30
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy