FIFTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 30021/03 by Bohumila MYŠÁKOVÁ against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

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

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 September 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 partial decision of 28 March 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 applican t, Ms Bohumila Myšáková, is a Czech national who was born in 1924 and lives in Prague . She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Červinka, a lawyer practising in Prague . The Czech Government (“the Government”) were r epr esented 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.

On 8 October 1991 the applicant and her two sisters, relying on the Land Ownership Act, invited the Prague-West Land Office ( pozemkový úřad ) to transfer into their ownership three plots of land which had been expropriated from their mother in 1949 and, some of them, had been transferred to the ownership of natural persons in an assignment procedure .

On 15 May 1995 the applicant signed an agreement with her two sisters, who disclaimed their restitution rights in her favour.

The applicant entered into restitution agreements with the Prague-West District Office ( okresní úřad ) on 23 May 1995. The Land Office gave its approval on 6 June 1996.

A certain Mr and Ms K., Mr B. and Mr and Ms M. appealed against the Land Office ’ s approval, alleging that the plots of land had been lawfully assigned to them or that they had bought them in good faith from former assignees. On 5 May 1998 the Ministry of Agriculture quashed the approval and sent the case back to the Land Office.

The restitution proceedings terminated by a decision of the Constitutional Court ( Ústavní soud ) of 27 February 2003.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the length of judicial proceedings are stated in the Court ’ s decision in the case of Vokurka v. Czech Republic , no. 40552/02 (dec.), §§ 1 1-24, 16 October 2007).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the restitution proceedings had lasted an unreasonably longue time.

THE LAW

The applicant complained of the length of the proceedings which, according to h er , is 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 applicant 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).

In the present case, the Court observes that the applicant applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended on 26 April 2007 and that the compensation proceedings seem to be still pending.

In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

The application must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

             Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President