FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 17539/03
by Jaroslav ŠEBÍK and Jana ŠTERNOVÁ,
Application no. 27483/03
by Josef KREJČÍ,
Application no. 38394/03
by Jiří BERAN,
Application no. 1972/04
by Johanna KAMMERLANDER
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrR. Maruste,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrV. Butkevych, substitute judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 5 June 2003 (no. 17539/03), 22 August 2003 (no. 27583/03), 25 November (no. 38394/03) and 14 January 2004 (no. 1972/04),
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 partial decisions of 28 March 2006 (no. 38394/03) and 4 May 2004 (no. 1972/04),
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 are:
Mr Jaroslav Šebík and Ms Jana Šternová, born in 1946 and 1949 respectively, living in Zlín and represented by V. Jablonský, a lawyer practising in Prague;
Mr Josef Krejčí, born in 1928 and residing in Čachtice;
Mr Jiří Beran, born in 1945 and living in Prague;
Ms Johanna Kammerlander, born in 1947 and living in Vienna, Austria.
They are Czech nationals.
The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice.
A. The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
Application no. 17539/03
by Jaroslav Šebík and Jana Šternová
On 18 October 1950 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) convicted the applicants’ father of treason, sentencing him to confiscation of all his property, which was subsequently sold and assigned to a certain P. and M.
On 12 December 1988 the applicants’ father died.
On 19 September 1990 the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) declared that, pursuant to the Judicial Rehabilitation Act, his conviction and all ancillary decisions had been quashed with retrospective effect.
On 31 October 1995 the applicants brought restitution proceedings before the Zlín District Court (okresní soud) against P. and M.
In a judgment of 10 November 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicants’ restitution action. The court had requested an expert opinion aimed at determining whether or not the property at issue had been sold to P. and M. at an unlawfully preferential price. With reference to the expert opinion, the court held that P. and M. had acquired the property lawfully.
On 14 August 2001 the Regional Court upheld the merits of the District Court’s judgment, which became final on 6 November 2001.
On 11 June 2002 the applicants’ appeal on points of law (dovolání) was dismissed by the Supreme Court as filed outside the one-month statutory time-limit laid down by Article 240 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure then in force.
On 5 December 2002 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) rejected the applicants’ constitutional appeal. It held that in respect of the Regional Court’s judgment the appeal had been filed outside the sixty-day time-limit provided for by the Constitutional Court Act, taking into account the dismissal of the applicants’ appeal on point of law for their failure to respect the one-month statutory time-limit. The court further held that the applicants’ argument relating to the proceedings before the Supreme Court were manifestly ill-founded.
Application no. 27483/03
by Josef Krejčí
On 18 December 1985 the applicant’s wife died. Judicial proceedings regarding her inheritance were started on 7 February 1986 and were meritoriously terminated on 23 June 2003 when the decision of the Prague Regional Court (krajský soud) of 28 May 2003 on the distribution of the inheritance became final.
Application no. 38394/03
by Jiří Beran
On 11 January 1993 a notary initiated inheritance proceedings following the death of a certain A.K.
On 28 April 1994 the Písek District Court (okresní soud) held that the applicant and his wife were heirs to A.K. At the same time, it determined the net value of A.K.’s assets.
The inheritance proceedings terminated with a decision of the District Court dated 30 June 2003 which became final on 9 July 2003.
Application no. 1972/04
by Johanna Kammerlander
The applicant’s husband was the owner of real estate in various places in the Czech Republic. These estates were confiscated from him in 1945. In 1949 some of the estates were transferred to the ownership of natural persons in an assignment procedure.
On 6 February 2000 the applicant’s husband died, designating the applicant as his universal heir. The application concerns the following sets of proceedings.
1. Restitution proceedings before the Semily Land Office
On 10 March 1992 the applicant’s late husband initiated restitution proceedings concerning the estates in Daliměřice and Bukovina.
It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
2. Restitution proceedings before the Jablonec nad Nisou Land Office
On 14 July 1992 the applicant’s late husband lodged a claim for the restitution of the real estate in Besedice, Chlístov u Železného Brodu, Jenišovice u Jablonce nad Nisou, Koberovy, Líšný, Vranové, Vrát and Železný Brod with the Jablonec nad Nisou Land Office.
It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
3. Restitution proceedings before the Liberec Land Office
On 23 November 1992 the applicant’s late husband lodged a claim for the restitution of the estate in Žďárek u Sychrova with the Liberec Land Office. It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the Court’s decision in the case of Vokurka v. Czech Republic, no. 40552/02 (dec.), §§ 11-24, 16 October 2007).
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the above proceedings.
2. The applicants in application no. 17539/03 also complained under the same provision that that their restitution action had not been dealt with by the national courts fairly, challenging in particular the District Court’s assessment of the expert opinion evaluating the purchase price of the property and the dismissal of their appeal on points of law. They also complained that the Regional Court had not decided on their proposal concerning the alternative relief.
3. The applicant in application no. 27483/03 further complained that the inheritance proceedings had not been fair, that the national courts had not been impartial and independent and that his rights guaranteed by Articles 1, 3 and 13 of the Convention had been violated.
4. The applicant in application no. 38394/03 also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he could not enjoy his possessions.
THE LAW
1. The Court first considers that, under Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common legal background.
2. The applicants complained about the length of the above 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 applicants did not wish to use this remedy.
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 applicants despite having been informed by the Court of the possibility of using this remedy maintained that they should not be required to exhaust such a remedy. It thus appears that they have chosen not to avail themselves of this remedy.
The Court therefore considers that the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Their length complaints must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article 35 §§ 4 of the Convention.
3. The applicants submitted additional complaints under Articles 1, 3, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court has examined the additional complaints as submitted by the applicants. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall 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 or its Protocols. These complaints must, therefore, be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, 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 applications.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy