FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 584/04
by František HLAVICA and Others
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 19 December 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 František Hlavica, born in 1924, Mrs Anna Šulcová, born in 1921, Ms Sylvie Šimáková, born in 1944 and Mrs Zdeňka Linhartová, born in 1944 are Czech nationals and live in Prague. They were represented before the Court by Mr V. Kracík, a lawyer practising in Prague. 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 10 February 1992 the first, second and a predecessor of the third and fourth applicants brought restitution proceedings in the Prague 10 District Court (obvodní soud) against a State enterprise. On an unspecified date, the third and fourth applicants’ predecessor died. The third and fourth applicants joined therefore the restitution proceedings.
It appears that the proceedings 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 applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the restitution proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicants complained of the length of the proceedings which, according to them, 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 applicants could have resorted to the compensatory remedy provided for by Act no. 82/1998 as amended which had entered into force on 27 April 2006. The applicants did not wish to use this remedy maintaining that they had turned to the Ministry of Justice on 15 February 2006 claiming the compensation in respect of their expenses but, on 30 August 2006, the Ministry had found their claim unjustified.
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 applicants despite having been informed by the Court of the possibility of using this remedy maintained that they should not be required to exhaust such a remedy. It thus appears that they have chosen not to avail themselves of this remedy. The Court adds that there were no special circumstances which would dispense the applicants from the obligation to exhaust this new compensatory remedy.
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 Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy