FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 35446/03
by Dagmar KŘIŽANOVÁ and others
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 March 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 4 November 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, Ms Dagmar Křižanová, Jiří Křižan and Jan Křižan, are Czech nationals who were born in 1919, 1941 and 1940 respectively, and live in Branky and Ontario (Canada) respectively. They were represented before the Court by Mr P. Ondra, 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 26 March 1992 the applicants brought proceedings for the restitution of their property which had been nationalised by the former communist regime.
It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the allegedly excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out in the Court’s decision in the case of Vokurka v. Czech Republic, no. 40552/02 (dec.), §§ 11-24, 16 October 2007).
COMPLAINT
Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicants complained about the excessive length of the proceedings which, according to them, was 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.
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. The Court also specified that the applicants whose claims for damages had not been granted by the Ministry of Justice or had been only partly granted, had to file a civil action against the State before competent courts in order to exhaust domestic remedies in this respect (see Vokurka v. Czech Republic, cited above, §§ 58-65).
Turning to the present case, the applicants informed the Court that they would intend to apply to the Ministry of Justice in order to use the new compensatory remedy pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended. However, it does not appear from the case-file whether the compensation proceedings have been instituted or terminated.
In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The application must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
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 WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy