FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 31607/03
by Fehim HANUŠA and Fatmir HANUŠA
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Snejana Botoucharova,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 September 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, Mr Fehim Hanuša, and Fatmir Hanuša, are citizens of Serbia who were born in 1954 and 1979 respectively. They are currently serving their prison sentences respectively in Valdice and Oráčov prisons (the Czech Republic). They were represented before the Court by Mr V. Vlk, a lawyer practising in Prague. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice. The Government of Serbia 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 9 December 1995 a police intervention unit entered the first applicant’s cottage on suspicion that he had raped a certain J. Fighting broke out, during which the first applicant was seriously injured. The applicants were charged with attempted murder of the police officers. The first applicant was also charged with rape. He was hospitalised and the second applicant was detained. In the course of the investigation it became apparent that J. had invented the story of the rape and that the police had already been aware of that on 8 December 1995.
i. Proceedings for the protection of the first applicant’s personal rights
On 26 June 1997 the first applicant filed with the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) an action for the protection of his personal rights against the Ministry of the Interior claiming CZK 30,000,000 (EUR 1,150,386[1]) as compensation for non-pecuniary damages. It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
ii. Procedure for the protection of the second applicant’s personal rights
On 11 May 1998 the second applicant and a certain K. filed with the Regional Court an action for the protection of their personal rights and payment of reasonable satisfaction. The court dismissed their action in a judgment of 10 April 2000 which was upheld by the Prague High Court (Vrchní soud) on 23 January 2001.
On 21 June 2001 the applicant requested to reopen the proceedings.
iii. Proceedings for damage to health, business losses brought by the first applicant
On 11 May 1998 the first applicant filed an action for damages against the Ministry of the Interior. On 11 November 1999 and 4 October 2001 respectively, the Beroun District Court (okresní soud) interrupted the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings for the protection of the applicant’s personal rights (i.). It appears that the proceedings have not yet been terminated.
iv. Proceedings for compensation for the expenses incurred in criminal proceedings
On 18 January 1999 the applicants brought two actions against the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior before the District Court for compensation for the expenses they had incurred in the criminal proceedings. On 28 May 2004 the court terminated the proceedings following the applicants’ withdrawals of their actions. Both decisions became final on 18 June 2004.
v. Proceedings for material damages initiated by the first applicant
On 9 December 1998 the first applicant brought proceedings before the District Court against the Ministry of the Interior, claiming material damages of CZK 200,000 (EUR 7,669).
On 25 June 2003 the District Court interrupted the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings for the protection of the applicant’s personal rights (i.). It appears that the proceedings remain pending.
vi. Proceedings for protection of personal rights of both applicants
On 1 June 2000 the applicants brought proceedings for protection of their personal rights against the Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Justice before the Regional Court. The Prague High Prosecutor’s Office (Vrchní státní zastupitelství), the Plzeň Regional Prosecutor’s Office (krajské státní zastupitelství) and the Plzeň-Town District Prosecutor’s Office (okresní státní zastupitelství) joined the proceedings later on.
The court dismissed their action in a judgment of 6 March 2003 which was quashed by the High Court in respect of the first applicant. In a judgment of 12 February 2004 the Regional Court partly granted the first applicant’s action, dismissing the rest of his claims. On 5 October 2004 the High Court modified this judgment in that it dismissed the successful part of the applicant’s action. On 31 October 2005 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed the first applicant’s appeal on points of law (dovolání). His constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) was rejected by the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) on 14 April 2006.
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).
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 the Convention about the length of the above proceedings.
2. They further complained that they had not had any domestic remedy at their disposal to challenge the unreasonable delays in the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicants 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 applicants’ complaints relate to the length of different sets of proceedings.
i. It notes that the proceedings for the protection of personal rights of the second applicant (ii.) ended on 23 January 2001 with the decision of the Prague High Court, which is, however, more than six months before the date on which the present application was submitted to the Court (24 September 2003).
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 notes that in respect of the remaining sets of proceedings, the Government objected that the applicants could have resorted to the compensatory remedy provided for by Act no. 82/1998.
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).
Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the applicants applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended on 24 August 2006 and that the compensation proceedings are still pending before the Ministry of Justice.
In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Their length-of-proceedings complaint must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicants also complained that they had had no effective domestic remedy at their disposal under Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Court has already found that Act no. 82/1998 as amended does provide the applicants with an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about the length of the proceedings. That finding is valid in the context of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
3. 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 = 26.18 CZK
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy