FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 27375/03 by Olga MARŠÍKOVÁ and František MARŠÍK against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

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

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 August 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 applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Ms Olga Maršíková and Mr František Maršík , are Czech nationals who were born in 1950 and 1948 respectively and live in Nov é Město n ad Metuj í . They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Nypl, a lawyer practising in Hradec Králové . 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.

On 20 November 1992 the first applicant bought a car from company R., with a one-year guarantee. In 1993 she claimed that there were defects in the car and withdrew from the purchase, but company R. was not willing to resolve the matter by a friendly settlement.

On 9 November 1993 the first applicant brought an action against company R. before the Brno-venkov District Court ( okresní soud ).

On 10 July 1998 the second applicant joined the proceedings, the car having actually been purchased by both spouses.

On 31 July 2002 the District Court decided in the applicants ’ favour.

Meanwhile, bankruptcy proceedings had been initiated against company R. The District Court ’ s judgment could not become final and the civil proceedings remain pending before the first instance court.

On 24 July 2006 the applicants applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended. It appears that the compensation proceedings are still pending.

B. Rele vant 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

The applicant s complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings .

They further alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention insofar no effective remedy was available to them with respect to the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

1. The applicants first complained about the length of the proceedings which, according to them, was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, so far as relevant, reads:

“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 examin ed 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 applicants applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended on 24 July 2006 and that the compensation proceedings seem to be still pending.

In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Articl e 35 § 1 of the Convention. This part of the application must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

2. The applicants also complained that they had no effective domestic remedy at their disposal, as required under Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

The Court has already found that Act no. 82/1998 as amended does provide the applicants with an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about the length of the proceedings. That finding is valid in the context of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the

3. 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