FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 6627/03 by Františ ek FISCHER against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 1 April 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 17 February 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, Mr Fra ntišek Fischer, is a Czech national who was born in 1953 and lives in Lys á Nad Labem. 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 a judgment of 20 October 1987 the Nymburk District Court ( okresní soud ) dismissed the applicant ’ s action against a certain R. seeking to vacate parcel no. 420/3 situated in Lysá nad Labem. It found that the applicant was not the owner of the land as he had neither inherited it nor acquired it by prescription. On 29 March 1988 the Prague Regional Court ( krajský soud ) upheld this judgment, which then became effective on 24 June 1988 .

On 5 May 1992 a motion to determine the ownership title to plot no. 420/3 in the Lysá nad Labem cadastral area was drawn up together with R. and filed in the court ’ s records.

It appears that the proceedings are still pending.

On 7 November 2006 the applicant cla imed compensation under Act no. 82/1998 as amended before the Ministry of Justice. In a letter of 23 February 2007 the Government notified the Court that the applicant ’ s claim for compensation had not, in fact, satisfied the formal requirements laid down by 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).

COMPLAINT

Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complain ed about the length of the above civil proceedings.

THE LAW

The applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings which, according to him, was 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 (see Vokurka v. Czech Republic , cited above, §§ 58-65).

Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the applicant applied for compensation under Act no. 82/1998 as amended to the Ministry of Justice on 7 November 2006 and that the compensation proceedings are apparently still pending. According to the Government, the applicant ’ s compensation claim did not satisfy the formal requirements laid down by Act no. 82/1998 as amended.

Having examined the present 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.

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 Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President