SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 50248/99
by Miroslav KRÁLÍČEK
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5 November 2002 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 introduced on 13 October 1999,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Miroslav Králíček, is a Czech national, who was born in 1928 and lives in Praha. He is represented before the Court by Mr J. Provazník, a lawyer practising in Praha.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 31 July 1992 the applicant filed a request for restitution of immovable property, which had been expropriated from his grandfather without compensation in 1949, with the Ústí nad Orlicí District Land Office (okresní pozemkový úřad).
On 23 August 1993 the applicant lodged his second request for restitution of other immovable property. On 9 June 1994 the District Land Office held that the applicant was the owner of the property pursuant to section 6 § 1 (b) of the Land Ownership Act, adjourning his second request.
On 24 August 1995 the District Land Office opened the applicant’s second claim, holding that he was, pursuant to §§ 9(4) and 11(7) of the Land Ownership Act, the owner of the property except for one plot of land, and ordering Z., a state-run enterprise, to restore the property to the applicant. Z. appealed against this decision to the Hradec Králové Regional Court (krajský soud) which, on 26 June 1996, having declared its incompetence concerning a part of the appeal, stayed the proceedings and referred this part of the appeal to the Ministry of Agriculture (ministerstvo zemědělství).
On 14 November 1996 the Ministry of Agriculture quashed, within the scope of the appeal referred to it, the District Land Office’s decision of 24 August 1995 and sent the case back to the District Land Office for further consideration. On 1 July 1997 the Regional Court quashed the remainder of the appeal and remitted the case to the District Land Office.
On 5 January 1998 the District Land Office held that the applicant was the owner of the property subject in question. On 5 June 1998 the Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the District Land Office. The proceedings before the District Land Office are still pending.
On 17 June 1998 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) against the Regional Court’s judgment of 5 June 1998, which was rejected as unsubstantiated as the proceedings were still pending by the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) on 4 November 1998.
B. Relevant domestic law
The Act on the Adjustment of Ownership Rights to Land And Other Agricultural Property (“the Land Ownership Act “)
The Land Ownership Act regulates, inter alia, the restitution of certain agricultural and other property (defined in section 1) which has been ceded or transferred to the State or other legal persons between 25 February 1948 and 1 January 1990. Section 6(1) lists the acts giving rise to a restitution claim including, in sub-paragraph (b), confiscation without compensation pursuant to the Land Reform Acts of 1947 and 1948.
As regards the procedure to be followed, section 9(1) of the Act provides that a rightful claimant must lodge his claim with the appropriate land office and, at the same time, request restitution from the holder of the property claimed (hereinafter “the obliged person”). The obliged person shall conclude a restitution agreement with the rightful claimant within sixty days from the date on which the latter makes his request. Section 9(2) provides that if no restitution agreement is concluded as provided for in paragraph (1), the land office shall take a decision.
Pursuant to section 11(7), if there is a building on the property claimed, which is in the possession of either the obliged person or the State, the rightful claimant is entitled to file a request for the restitution of both the land and the building with the Land Office, provided that the rightful claimant is entitled to seek either compensation, pursuant to this Act, or a share of the property amounting to at least 50% of the value of the building, pursuant to Act No. 42/1992, from the obliged person or the State.
COMPLAINT
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the restitution proceedings.
2. Under the same provision, he complains that the restitution proceedings were unfair. He submits in particular that the Regional Court wrongly interpreted certain provisions of the Land Ownership Act, that its decision of 5 June 1998 is contradictory, and that the Constitutional Court rejected his constitutional appeal.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that the restitution proceedings have not been held within a reasonable time, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, as 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...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to communicate this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about unfairness in the restitution proceedings.
However, the Court observes that the restitution proceedings in the present case are still pending before the Ústí nad Labem District Land Office. It therefore finds that this part of the application is premature and must be rejected pursuant to 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 restitution proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
T.L. EarlyJ.-P. Costa
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy