FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 15501/03
by Věra ZDRÁHALOVÁ
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 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 7 May 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, Mrs Věra Zdráhalová, is a Czech national who was born in 1939 and lives in Kuřim. 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.
In 1988 a certain C. repaired the applicant’s weekend cottage, for which the applicant paid him CZK 54,800 (EUR 2,113[1]). However, this did not correspond to the real extent of the work C. had carried out. On the applicant’s criminal complaint, the police started to investigate the case. However, they closed it on 3 January 1990, as C. was subject to a presidential amnesty.
On 25 January 1990 the applicant brought a civil action for damages against C., seeking payment of CZK 20,000 (EUR 771).
In a judgment of 13 March 1998 the District Court ordered C. to pay the applicant CZK 20,397 (EUR 786) with interest and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s action. On 15 April and 22 May 1998 respectively, the applicant and C. appealed.
On 30 January 2002 the Regional Court partly dismissed and partly granted the applicant’s appeal and sent the relevant part of the case back to the District Court.
At a hearing held before the District Court on 13 November 2002 the applicant unsuccessfully requested the court to order a new expert opinion. At the end of the hearing the court delivered a judgment by which it rejected the remaining part of the applicant’s action for damages. The applicant was ordered to pay court fees.
In a judgment of 23 June 2003 the Regional Court upheld the merits of the District Court’s judgment.
On 8 September 2003 the Regional Court’s judgment was served on the applicant who, on 13 October 2003, was informed that the judgments had not yet become enforceable, as it was not possible to deliver the Regional Court’s judgment to C. According to the Government, the judgment became final on 28 October 2003.
On 31 July 2006 the applicant applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended. She claimed CZK 558,042 (EUR 21,516) in respect of pecuniary damage, CZK 600,000 (EUR 23,134) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and CZK 26,075 (EUR 967) in respect of court fees.
In a letter of 28 December 2006 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that her application had been accepted, that it had been found that her right to a determination of their civil claim within a reasonable time had been violated and that she had been awarded a sum of CZK 156,000 (EUR 6,015) in respect of non-pecuniary damage she might have sustained and CZK 15,000 (EUR 578) in respect of court fees. The Ministry refused, however, the applicant’s claim regarding compensation for pecuniary damage.
On 12 January 2007 the applicant informed the Registry that she did not intend to turn to a court under section 15(2) of 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).
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time.
2. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, she further complained of the outcome of the proceedings and of the fact that the courts had rejected her request to hear her daughter as a witness and to order a new expert opinion.
3. She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that due to the excessive length of the proceedings, she had been deprived of any possibility of enjoying her property rights.
4. The applicant finally alleged a violation of Article 17 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicants first complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which 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 cases, the Court observes that the applicant applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended on 31 July 2006 claiming CZK 558,042 (EUR 21,516) in respect of pecuniary damage, CZK 600,000 (EUR 23,134) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and CZK 26,075 (EUR 967) in respect of court fees.
In a letter of 28 December 2006 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that her application had been accepted, that it had been found that her right to a determination of their civil claim within a reasonable time had been violated and that she had been awarded a sum of CZK 156,000 (EUR 6,015) in respect of non-pecuniary damage she might have sustained and CZK 15,000 (EUR 578) in respect of court fees. The Ministry refused, however, the applicant’s claim regarding compensation for pecuniary damage.
The applicant did not find the sum awarded by the Ministry of Justice sufficient but did not turn to a court under section 15(2) of Act no. 82/1998 as amended.
In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Her length-of-proceedings complaint must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicant also complained that due to the excessive length of the proceedings, she had been deprived of any possibility of enjoying her property rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which reads as follows:
“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 or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The Court notes that the applicant complained of the negative consequences of the length of the proceedings for her. Accordingly, the Court finds that the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not give rise to any separate issue (see, among many other authorities, Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, § 23).
3. The applicant finally complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the outcome of the proceedings and of the fact that the courts had rejected her request to hear her daughter as a witness and to order a new expert opinion. She also alleged a violation of Article 17 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 it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
It follows that these complaints are 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
[1] 1 EUR = 25.97 CZK
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy