SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 20551/02
by Jaroslav HEŘMANSKÝ
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 October 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsW. Thomassen,
MrsA. Mularoni, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 December 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jaroslav Heřmanský, is a Czech national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Hřensko. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Hlavnička, a lawyer practising in Kamenický Šenov.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1994 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (krajský soud) granted the applicant's request to declare the North-Bohemian Gas Company's termination of his employment in 1989 null and void.
On an unspecified date in 1994, the applicant lodged a civil action with the District Court (okresní soud) against the North-Bohemian Gas Company for 370,000 CZK (11,660 EUR) as compensation for his loss of wages.
On an unspecified date, the District Court rejected the applicant's action for his alleged failure to pay the court fees. It turned out that the applicant had paid the court fees, but did not duly specify the court's account.
On 25 September 1998 the District Court discontinued the proceedings due to the applicant's alleged withdrawal of his action.
On 30 November 1998 the Regional Court, upon the applicant's appeal, quashed this decision and remitted the case to the District Court for further consideration.
On 28 August 2001 the District Court's vice-president, upon the applicant's complaint, acknowledged the delay in the proceedings which, it seems, are still pending.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains, without invoking any provision of the Convention, that the length of the proceedings has been excessive.
2. He also complains, without invoking any provision of the Convention, that he was denied access to court due to the District Court's unjustified rejection of his action and discontinuation of the proceedings.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings, a matter which falls under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and which, in so far as relevant, provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings, and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant further complains about the allegedly unjustified rejection of his action and discontinuation of the proceedings.
To the extent that the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is to be understood as including a complaint that he was deprived of a fair determination of his action, the Court notes that these civil proceedings have not yet been concluded and, therefore, this part of the application must be rejected as premature, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
T.L. EarlyJ.-P. Costa
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy