FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 20663/03
by Edita RABINOVITZ
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,
Snejana Botoucharova,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 June 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 applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Edita Rabinovitz, is an American national who was born in 1926 and lives in Maryland (United States of America). She was represented before the Court by Ms P. Krtková, a lawyer practising in Praha. 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 an unspecified date in 1994 the applicant instituted restitution proceedings before the Prague 1 District Court (obvodní soud). On 9 February 1994 the case was formally registered by the court.
The proceedings terminated by a decision of the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) of 19 August 2004 which was notified to the applicant’s lawyer on 23 August 2004.
On 20 January 2007 the applicant applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended.
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
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the restitution proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that the length of the above proceedings had been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which provides, in so far as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal.”
The Government objected that the applicant 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 (see Vokurka v. Czech Republic, cited above, §§ 58-65).
Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the applicant applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended on 20 January 2007 and that the compensation proceedings seem to be still pending.
In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant has 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