SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 65193/01
by Dagmar HORČÍKOVÁ
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8 June 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrC. Bîrsan
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 December 2000,
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 applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Dagmar Horčíková, is a Czech national who was born in 1959 and lives in Prague 6. She was represented before the Court by Mr O. Choděra, a lawyer practising in Prague 1. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Schorm.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 28 January 1998 the applicant lodged an action with the Prague 5 District Court (obvodní soud) against a private entrepreneur, seeking the payment of CZK 29,858 (EUR 913.23). The action reached the court on 30 January 1998.
On 9 February 1998 the District Court invited the applicant to pay the court fees, which he did. The proof of this payment was notified to the District Court on 19 February 1998.
On 24 February 1998 the court requested an excerpt from the Register of Trades (živnostenský rejstřík) concerning the defendant's business activities, which was submitted on 10 March 1998.
On 20 March 1998 the applicant's claim was sent to the defendant.
On 10 April 1998 the Prague 5 District Court found that the defendant had his permanent address within the Prague 6 district and, on 4 August 1998, it transferred the action, for territorial reasons, to the Prague 6 District Court.
By a payment order (platební rozkaz) of 25 August 1998, the District Court ordered the defendant to pay the sum claimed by the applicant, including the default interest. According to the Government, the payment order was issued on 28 August 1998.
The defendant did not appeal and the order became effective on 23 September 1998.
On 9 November 1998 the applicant requested the execution of the payment order by means of the sale of the defendant's movable property. The applicant's request was notified to the District Court on 12 November 1998.
By letter of 18 November 1998, notified, according to the applicant, on 22 December 1998, the District Court invited the applicant's lawyer to submit his power of attorney and to pay the court fees. The power of attorney and proof of payment of the fees reached the court on 28 and 29 December 1998 respectively.
On 30 December 1998 the District Court ordered the execution of the payment order. On 11 January 1999 the order was notified to the applicant's lawyer who, on 29 March 1999, and upon the District Court's request, returned it for rectification of the date from which the default interest had to be paid to the applicant.
On 30 March 1999 the applicant's lawyer urged the court to continue with his client's proceedings.
On 6 April 1999 the court rectified the payment order which, on 9 April 1999, was served on the applicant.
On 8 June 1999, 9 May and 20 September 2000 a bailiff unsuccessfully attempted to serve the execution order on the defendant, and to draft a list of movable property belonging to him.
In the meantime, on 12 April and 13 September 2000, the applicant's lawyer had requested the court to enforce the execution order.
During the period from 29 September 2000 to 8 January 2001, the defendant repeatedly attended the District Court and paid the amount due in several instalments. On 7 February 2001 the District Court remitted the whole sum of CZK 61,000 (EUR 1,865.73) to the applicant. In the meantime, on 24 October 2000, the bailiff had again unsuccessfully tried to contact the defendant at his permanent address.
On 28 February 2001 the District Court remitted the defendant's outstanding payment of 1,811 CZK (EUR 55.39) to the applicant.
In his letter of 4 February 2003 addressed to the Registry, the applicant's lawyer stated, without providing further details, that his client had received the totality of the amount due in the summer of 2001.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the length of the proceedings was in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The Government first submit that the applicant did not exhaust all domestic remedies available to him.
The Court recalls that it has previously held that there is no effective remedy under Czech law to complain about the length of civil proceedings (Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, §§ 55-69, CEDH 2003-VIII). It sees no reason for distinguishing the present case from that of Hartman and dismisses, therefore, the Government's objection.
The Government further submit that the case was not particularly complex and that the applicant and her lawyer contributed to the delay in the conduct of the proceedings since they did not provide the District Court with the power of attorney and did not pay the court fees when they filed the request for the execution of the payment order.
As to the conduct of the authorities, the Government contend that, other than the delay between the first and second attempts of the bailiff to list the defendant's movable property, which took place on 8 June 1999 and 9 May 2000 respectively, there were no delays for which the State is responsible. In addition, at the relevant time, the District Court was critically shorthanded and overloaded with a number of execution cases. In order to improve the effectiveness and speed of execution proceedings, the Parliament adopted Act no. 120/2001 on Bailiffs and Execution Activities (zákon o soudních exekutorech a exekuční činnosti).
The applicant does not express further views in respect of the merits of the application.
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII.)
The period to be taken into consideration began on 28 January 1998, when the applicant lodged her action with the Prague 5 District Court. The Court accepts the Government's submission that the proceedings ended on 28 February 2001, when the District Court remitted the defendant's outstanding payment to the applicant, rather than the vague assertion by the applicant's lawyer that the final sum was not paid until the summer of 2001. The proceedings thus lasted three years and one month, before one instance, but in two phases – the determination of the merits and enforcement of the judgment.
The Court considers that the case was not particularly complex.
It appears that it did not involve any issue which was urgent, irremediable or of vital importance.
As regards the applicant's conduct, the Court does not consider, contrary to the Government that she acted in a way which extensively prolonged the proceedings.
As to the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes that while it is true that there was a delay of eleven months which elapsed between the first and second attempts of the bailiff to list the defendant's assets i.e. between 8 June 1999 and 9 May 2000, the proceedings otherwise progressed at a normal pace.
Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and taking into account the overall duration of the proceedings, the Court finds that the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was complied with in the present case.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. The procedure under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention must therefore be discontinued and the case rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
T.L. EarlyJ.-P. Costa
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy