FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 38333/06 by BENET CZECH, SPOL. S R.O. against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, Renate Jaeger , Karel Jungwiert , Rait Maruste , Mark Villiger , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , judges, and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 September 2006,

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, Benet Czech, s po l . s r . o ., is a limited liability company incorporated under Czech law with its registered seat in Pra gue . It was represented before the Court by M r P. Klimeš , a lawyer practising in Pra gue . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm , from the Ministry of Justice.

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

In April 2001 criminal proceedings were instituted against a former manager and sole shareholder of the applicant company on the suspicion of having committed tax evasion. Subsequently, prosecuting authorities seized the applicant company ' s financial and business documents which were, however, mixed with documents of other companies subjected to the investigation. According to the applicant company, the documents have never been returned to it.

On 13 September 2001 the prosecuting authorities seized CZK 8,861,401.13 (EUR 319,942) and USD 41,677.80 (EUR 29,769) deposited on the applicant company ' s bank accounts on the suspicion that these assets might have constituted a profit from criminal activities of the manager. The applicant company says that it was not involved in any business transactions investigated by the police and that its former manager is prosecuted for acts which are not in any way related to the business pursued by the applicant company. The criminal proceedings are still pending.

Meanwhile, numerous tax proceedings were brought against the applicant company in regard of the suspected retrenchment. They all were later discontinued as no tax evasion by the applicant company was detected.

On 14 April 2005 the applicant company requested that the seizure be lifted. Its request was dismissed by the Prague High Prosecutor ( vrchní státní zástupce ) on 24 June 2005. The prosecutor found irrelevant the applicant company ' s objection that the tax proceedings brought against it had been discontinued.

On 11 August 2005 the Prague High Court ( vrchní soud ) dismissed the applicant company ' s appeal.

In its constitutional appeal, t he applicant company claim ed that the seizure of its assets was disproportiona te due to its excessive length. On 9 March 2006 the Constitutional Court ( Ústavní soud ) declared the appeal inadmissible, finding that a fair balance between the general interest of the society and those of the applicant company arising from its fundamental rights had been struck. The decision was served on the applicant company ' s lawyer on 16 March 2006.

On 9 October 2006 the High Prosecutor dismissed the applicant company ' s new request for partial lifting of the seizure. The High Court upheld this decision on 21 November 2006, but on 30 January 2008 the Constitutional Court quashed that decision finding a violation of the applicant company ' s right to property. It held that the length of the seizure, over six years, was unreasonable, which thus disrupted the fair balance between the general interest of fighting serious crime and the protection of the rights of the applicant company. On 11 March 2008 the High Prosecutor lifted fully the seizure of the applicant company ' s bank accounts.

COMPLAINT

The applicant company complain ed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that its property rights had been violated by the seizure of its assets and business documents lasting for almost six years, and by consequent financial losses caused by the major decrease of its liquid assets.

THE LAW

The applicant company complain s that the seizure of its assets and business documents had i nfringed its property rights, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The Government observe that the Constitutional Court ' s decision of 9 March 2006, which is the final decision in the present case, was served on the applicant company ' s lawyer on 16 March 2006. Consequently, the application was introduced out of time. The applicant company disputes this argument and maintains that 16 and 17 September 2006 was a weekend and, therefore, it lodged the application on the first following working day.

The Court reiterates that the six-month period begins to run on the day after the date on which the final domestic decision was pronounced orally in public or, if not so pronounced, was communicated to the applicant or the applicant ' s lawyer. This means that time starts to run when the applicant ' s representative receives notification of a decision, even if the applicant is not informed until later (see Otto v. Germany ( dec .), no. 21425/06, 10 November 2009 ; Çelik v. Turkey ( dec .), no. 52991/99, ECHR 2004-X; Pejić v. Croatia ( dec .), no. 66894/01, 19 December 2002). In the present case, the Constitutional Court ' s decision of 9 March 2006, which is the final decision in the present case, was served on the applicant company ' s lawyer on 16 March 2006. The Court is thus satisfied that the six-month period started to run on the next day and expired on Saturday, 16 September 2006 (see Otto , cited above) . Actually, the applicant company ' s first letter introducing the application, dated 16 September 2006, was sent by fax on 18 September 2006, which date must be considered to be the date on which the present application was lodged (see Růžičková v. Czech Republic ( dec .), no. 15630/05, 16 September 2008, and Otto , cited above ).

The Court does not accept the applicant company ' s argument that as 16 September 2006 fell on Saturday, the deadline had to be extended to Monday, 18 September 2006. The compliance with the six-month deadline is determined using criteria specific to the Convention, not those of each respondent State ' s legislation (see Otto , cited above ). The applicant company did not suggest any exceptional circumstances why it could not comply with the six-month time-limit.

The Court finds, therefore, that the application has been introduced out of time and is inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President