FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29056/13
Jan ŠLECHTA
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 September 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Jovan Ilievski, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 April 2013,
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
1. The applicant, Mr Jan Šlechta, is a Czech national who was born in 1968 and lives in Jablonec nad Nisou. He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Zůbek, a lawyer practising in Prague.
2. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
A. Background to the case
4. On 30 June 1995 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (krajský soud) initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the applicant in his capacity of entrepreneur. A trustee in bankruptcy appointed by the court failed to meet his obligations and was removed from office on 14 March 2006. On the same day, a new trustee in bankruptcy was appointed but removed on 6 March 2009. It appears that the bankruptcy proceedings are still pending.
B. Proceedings for damages against the State (no. 18 C 213/2004)
5. On 3 November 2004 the applicant initiated proceedings for damages against the State. Complaining of the duration of the bankruptcy proceedings, which had resulted in his continuing inability to undertake and acquire assets, and of the insufficient supervision by the court of the actions of the trustee in bankruptcy, he sought to have reimbursed a sum of about 150 million Czech korunas (CZK – 5,549,290 euros (EUR)), of which CZK 40 million (EUR 1,479,810) was in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
6. On 9 May 2006 the Prague 2 District Court (obvodní soud) granted his application for appointment of counsel. On 18 September 2009 it admitted the original trustee in bankruptcy into the proceedings on the State’s side.
7. On 29 September 2010 the court dismissed the applicant’s action for damages.
8. On 31 May 2011 the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) quashed the judgment, holding that while the compensation for damage caused by the improper conduct attributable to the State was governed by the State Liability Act (Act no. 82/1998), the responsibility of the trustee in bankruptcy for damage caused by breaching his obligations were governed by general law. Since the latter type of dispute fell within the jurisdiction of regional courts, the Municipal Court referred this part of the case to itself as the first-instance court (see paragraphs 10-17 below). As to the dispute with the State, the case was sent back to the District Court which, on 3 July 2013, ordered to the State to pay CZK 178,500 (EUR 6,604) with interest, rejecting the applicant’s remaining claims.
9. On 21 January 2014 the Municipal Court modified the first-instance judgment ordering the State to pay the applicant a further CZK 31,500 (EUR 1,165) with interest in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and quashed the judgment in respect of the amount of pecuniary damage sought and as to the amount of the court fees, remitting this part of the case to the District Court again.
It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
C. Proceedings for damages brought by the applicant against the original trustee in bankruptcy (no. 35 Cm 140/2011)
10. The applicant was ordered to pay court fees of CZK 1,000,000 (EUR 36,996); he asked for an exemption on 30 December 2011.
11. On 20 March 2012 the Municipal Court exempted him from 50% of the court fees.
12. On 28 June 2012 the Prague High Court (vrchní soud) reversed the decision exempting the applicant from 90% of the court fees, noting that in assessing the financial situation of plaintiffs, it was necessary to consider not only the financial means available to them, but also their ability to secure other means such as work, which was the applicant’s case.
13. Since the applicant had failed to pay the court fees, the Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings on 5 September 2012. At the same time, it did not grant the applicant legal assistance as he had been only partially exempted from the court fees.
14. On 25 September 2012, the applicant challenged the decisions of 20 March and 28 June 2012 (see paragraphs 11-12 above) before the Constitutional Court, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. On 18 October 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint as manifestly ill-founded.
15. On 29 April 2013 the High Court quashed the Municipal Court’s decision of 5 September 2012.
16. On 12 September 2013 the Municipal Court dismissed again the applicant’s request to have a lawyer appointed. On 11 December 2013 the High Court upheld the Municipal Court’s dismissal.
17. From the Internet site of the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) it appears that, following a prior appeal on points of law by the applicant, on 31 May 2016 that court quashed the previous decision and remitted the case to the High Court for fresh consideration.
D. Proceedings for damages brought by the new trustee in bankruptcy against the original trustee in bankruptcy (no. 13 C 303/2007)
18. On 27 April 2007 the trustee in bankruptcy who was appointed on 6 March 2009 (see paragraph 4 above) brought an action for damages against the original trustee in bankruptcy, seeking damages of CZK 6,147,000 (EUR 227,415).
19. On 4 March 2008 and 1 February 2010 respectively, he withdrew his action in respect of the amount of CZK 6,147,000 as having been paid by the original trustee in bankruptcy. On 5 May 2010 the Prague 6 District Court partly granted the plaintiff’s action, discontinuing the proceedings in respect of the amount withdrawn.
E. Criminal proceedings brought against the original trustee in bankruptcy (no. 51 T 7/2007)
20. On 30 July 2009 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court found the original trustee in bankruptcy guilty of having committed the criminal offences of embezzlement, fraud and misrepresentation of data relating to economic results, causing damage to the assets in liquidation of CZK 6,147,000 (EUR 227,385), ordering him, inter alia, to pay CZK 385,811 (EUR 14,272) back to the assets in liquidation.
COMPLAINTS
21. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the excessive court fees required from him had been in breach of his right of access to a court.
22. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 he argued that by refusing to examine the merits of his action, the national courts had deprived him of the only way to protect his property rights.
THE LAW
23. The applicant alleged a violation of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the relevant parts of which read as follows:
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest ....”
1. Observations of the parties
24. The Government maintained at the outset that there had been no interference with the applicant’s rights since the harm he had suffered in the bankruptcy proceedings had already been the object of the criminal proceedings brought against the original trustee in bankruptcy, and also the proceedings for damages initiated by the succeeding bankruptcy trustee. They invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible according to Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.
25. Furthermore, the Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. An appeal on points of law was lodged with the Supreme Court by the applicant and the case had not still been concluded. Even in the case of a negative result for the applicant, the decision would have no res iudicata effect and he could assert his claims – now more realistic – again.
26. Lastly, on the merits, the Government maintained that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 since the amount of court fees in the circumstances could not be considered disproportionate.
27. The applicant disputed the Government’s arguments.
2. The Court’s assessment
28. The Court reiterates that under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted. In that connection the Court points out that any applicant must have provided the domestic courts with the opportunity, which is in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States, of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them. That rule is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 of the Convention – with which it has close affinity – that there is an effective remedy available in the domestic system in respect of the alleged breach (see, for example, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002‑VIII).
29. The Court notes that following the Supreme Court’s decision of 31 May 2016 (see paragraphs 17 and 25 above) the proceedings are still pending before the national courts. As a consequence, on the one hand, their outcome is uncertain at present and, on the other hand, the applicant should be able to challenge their outcome, provided that it is not favourable to him, through the available remedies, including, ultimately, a constitutional complaint.
30. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that the application is inadmissible as being premature and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 October 2017.
Renata DegenerKrzysztof Wojtyczek
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy