European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 31184/04
by Karel KOPECKÝ
against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 24 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 August 2004,

Having regard to the Court’s decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention) and,

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, Mr Karel Kopecký, is a German national who was born in 1938 and lives in Veselíčko u Lipníka. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice. The Government of Germany did not make use of their right to intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention).

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

In 1995 the applicant advanced CZK 1,200,000 (EUR 47,906) to Z.S. whom he began dating in 1994, in order to purchase and renovate a house. She knew that the applicant was suffering from diabetes and would become blind. On 23 November 2000 she certified that the applicant had advanced the above sum and that he could live in the house. The applicant’s health condition worsened and he had to be hospitalised in Germany. In hospital, he learnt that Ms Z.S. intended to sell the house. On 2 April 2001 the applicant returned to the Czech Republic. Since 15 July 2001 he has been staying in the house without paying rent.

On 17 October 2002 the applicant brought before the Přerov District Court (okresní soud) an action against Ms Z.S. seeking payment of CZK 1,200,000 (EUR 48,918)¹. He was exempted from court fees.

In a judgment of 19 November 2003 the District Court did not grant the applicant’s action. On 25 May 2004 the Ostrava Regional Court (krajský soud), upon the applicant’s appeal, quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for further consideration.

On 12 August 2004 the District Court revoked, with retroactive effect, its decision on exemption from court fees. On 18 November 2004 the Regional Court modified this decision in that it revoked, with retroactive effect, one half of the applicant’s adjudicated exemption from court fees.

On 2 March 2005 the District Court invited him to pay, within ten days, court fees in the amount of CZK 24,000 (978 EUR). On 11 March 2005 the applicant informed the judge that he did not have sufficient financial means to pay the court fees and, at the same time, requested the judge to be exempted from court fees. On 29 April 2005 the District Court did not grant his request. Another similar request was dismissed on 8 February 2006. The second dismissal was upheld by the Regional Court on 30 March 2006.

In the meantime, in a judgment of 24 October 2005, the District Court had dismissed the applicant’s action brought against Ms Z.S. Having appealed on 22 December 2005, the applicant was invited, on 4 January and 26 June 2006 respectively, to pay court fees concerning the appeal proceedings. On 10 January and 10 July 2006 respectively, he explained to the District Court judge that he would not pay court fees due to his poor financial condition.

On 13 July 2006 the District Court discontinued the appeal proceedings, the applicant not having paid court fees. On 20 October 2006 the Regional Court upheld this decision. The applicant’s constitutional appeal was rejected by the Constitutional Court as having been introduced outside the sixty-day statutory time-limit on 13 July 2007.

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

Invoking Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the court proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time which had negatively affected his private and family life. He submitted that he was discriminated on amount of his double citizenship.

THE LAW

“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 applicant 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 applicant despite having been informed by the Court of the possibility of using this remedy maintained that he should not be required to exhaust such a remedy. It thus appears that he has chosen not to avail himself 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.

The Court is of the opinion that, even assuming that in this respect the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, and to the extent that these complaints have been substantiated, there is no indication in the case file that the applicant’s rights under these provisions have not been respected.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President