FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 34324/03
by Anděla ŠÁRKOVÁ
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 29 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Snejana Botoucharova,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Javier Borrego Borrego,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 October 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 Anděla Šárková, is a Czech national who was born in 1949 and lives 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.
The applicant fell ill with chronic hepatitis, which was classified as an occupational illness in June 1986.
On 9 March 1987 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Brno Municipal Court (městský soud) against her former employer seeking compensation for her diminished social capacity, and loss of income and earning capacity. Subsequently, she included claims for a contribution to her for dietary nutrition and for additional damages.
On 14 October 1992 the Municipal Court received an expert opinion.
In a judgment of 29 March 1995 it partly granted the applicant’s action.
On 14 September 1995 the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) partly modified this judgment, in that it dismissed the applicant’s request for an increase of her diminished social capacity and related default interest, stating that the applicant’s health had improved, so that it did not warrant the requested increase. It quashed the remaining part of the judgment and remitted it to the Municipal Court for further consideration.
On 11 September 1997 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law (dovolání).
On 26 November 1997 the Municipal Court found the expert’s opinion invalid, as there was no record about the expert’s appointment included in the case-file. On 2 December 1997 it appointed a new expert.
On 16 September 1998 the Municipal Court held a hearing, at which the expert presented his opinion. The applicant objected to mistakes in the opinion.
On 25 November 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request to transfer her case to the Prague 3 District Court (okresní soud).
In a judgment of 13 October 1999 the Municipal Court partly granted the applicant’s action. It stated that the expert had remedied the mistakes and that, in any event, these mistakes had not affected his credibility.
On 8 February 2000 the Municipal Court received the defendant’s supplement to its appeal. The applicant alleged that on 1 February 2000 the court had warned the defendant about the expiration of the time-limit.
On 7 September 2004 the Regional Court held a hearing, attended by the applicant’s lawyer. It dismissed the defendant’s appeal and ordered it to pay the costs of the proceedings into the account of the applicant’s lawyer. On 6 October 2004 this judgment became effective.
According to the applicant, the Regional Court did not invite her to the hearing of 7 September 2004 and sent the final judgment only to her lawyer, who failed to inform her about the progress of the proceedings and about their outcome.
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).
COMPLAINTS
1. She complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had been excessive.
2. The applicant complained under Article 1 of the Convention that the Regional Court had not invited her to the final hearing and had not sent the final judgment to her.
3. Invoking the same provision, she complained that the courts had incorrectly assessed her action for damages and had failed to inform her about her right to claim a higher default interest. She also complained that after the expert had obtained her personal data, the Municipal Court had declared his opinion invalid for a failure to keep a record of his appointment, and that the new expert opinion had been incorrect. She alleged that the proceedings had not been impartial as the Municipal Court had warned the defendant about the expiration of the time-limit for submitting an appeal, and that the Regional Court had considered her health as of 1995 instead of as of 1987.
4. She also complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the protracted proceedings had interfered with her private and family life.
5. The applicant finally complained under Article 14 of the Convention that she had not been allowed to practice in the field of her specialization during the communist regime and that the courts had kept discrimination against her in the proceedings, even after her rehabilitation.
THE LAW
1. The applicant first complained about the excessive length of the proceedings which, according to her, 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 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).
However, the applicant despite having been informed by the Court of the possibility of using this remedy maintained that she should not be required to exhaust such a remedy. It thus appears that she has chosen not to avail herself of this remedy.
The Court therefore considers that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. This part of the application must therefore by declared inadmissible according to Article 35 §§ 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicant further raised a number of complaints concerning the alleged unfairness of the proceedings, relying on Articles 1 and 6 of the Convention.
The Court recalls that, under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law.
In the present case, the applicant’s complaints concerning the alleged unfairness of the proceedings were not brought before the Constitutional Court.
She has not therefore exhausted relevant domestic remedies and this part of the application must also be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
3. The applicant finally complained that the protracted proceedings had interfered with her private and family life, that she had not been allowed to practice in the field of her specialization during the communist regime and that the courts kept discrimination against her in the proceedings, even after her rehabilitation. She relied on Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention.
The Court has examined the complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as this complaint falls within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention.
4. 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