FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31624/03
by Josef KLAPAL
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrR. Maruste,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 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,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Josef Klapal, was a Czech national who was born in 1944 and lived in Lelekovice. On 28 January 2004 the applicant died. By a letter of 20 October 2006 the late applicant’s wife Mrs Věra Klapalová informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application in his stead. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1986 the applicant, a member of a building cooperative constructing residential houses (stavební bytové družstvo) (hereinafter “the cooperative”), concluded a contract with an association with a view to participating in the building of a number of garages. The applicant undertook, inter alia, to perform 600 hours of work in the course of the construction works.
i. Proceedings brought by the cooperative against the applicant
On 25 March 1991 the cooperative sued the applicant before the Brno Municipal Court (městský soud) for payment of CZK 1,912.50 (EUR 69.43[1]) maintaining that he had failed to do 600 hours of work in accordance with the contract.
On 25 June 1993 the applicant filed a counterclaim against the cooperative, requesting payment of CZK 9,589 (EUR 348) alleging that he had to finish the building of his garage at his own cost.
In a judgment of 6 June 1996 the Municipal Court ordered the applicant to pay the sum claimed by the cooperative. It did not decide upon his counterclaim, which it found should be considered in separate proceedings.
On 26 May 1997 the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the Municipal Court which, on 5 September 1997, decided to join the cooperative’s action and the applicant’s counterclaim.
By a judgment of 29 April 1999 the court ordered the applicant to pay CZK 1,912.50 to the cooperative, which was obliged to reimburse CZK 9,839 to the applicant.
On 23 July 2001 the Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment and sent the case back to the Municipal Court which, on 28 July 2003, ordered the cooperative to pay CZK 11,751.50 (EUR 427) to the applicant. The latter appealed on 13 October 2003.
On 28 January 2004 the applicant died. On 21 May 2004 the Municipal Court received request for withdrawal submitted by the claimant and the applicant’s wife.
On 23 February 2006 the Regional Court stayed the appeal proceedings.
ii. Proceedings brought by the applicant against the cooperative
On 16 December 1998 the applicant filed an action before the Municipal Court seeking a decision that the cooperative should transfer the garage in the applicant’s use to his personal ownership.
On 25 January 1999 the court declared that it was not competent to deal with the applicant’s action and transferred it to the Regional Court which, on 31 October 2001, rejected the action as not having been filed properly.
On 4 December 2001 the applicant appealed to the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) which, on 8 August 2003, upheld the Regional Court’s decision.
COMPLAINTS
Without invoking any provision of the Convention, the applicant complained that, being physically handicapped, he and his wife had been discriminated against during the construction of his garage.
He further complained about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
The applicant finally maintained that the courts had not proceeded in conformity with law.
THE LAW
By a letter dated 9 February 2006 the applicant was informed that following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of his application, the Court had invited the Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. However, the letter was returned by the postal service with the mention that the applicant had died.
On 20 October 2006 the late applicant’s wife Mrs Věra Klapalová informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application in his stead.
In a letter of 31 October 2006 the Government’s complementary observations concerning the new domestic remedy with regard to the length of proceedings cases were sent to Mrs Věra Klapalová, who was requested to submit any observations in reply by 12 December 2006.
On 29 November 2006 she replied that she considered inefficient to continue to pursue the application. On 7 December 2006 the Registry invited her to clearly indicate, by 15 January 2007, whether she wished to withdraw the application. However, no response has been received.
By a letter dated 27 July 2007, sent by registered post, Mrs Věra Klapalová was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired, and that no extension of time had been requested. Her attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The return receipt has not been returned by the post service. At the same time, Mrs Věra Klapalová has not showed interest in pursuing the application in another way.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, she may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
[1] 1 EUR = 27.58 CZK
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy