FIFTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application n o. 38338/02 by Jiří KOLMAN and o thers against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

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

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 October 2002,

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 20 September 2005 ,

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

Mr Jiří Kolman, Ms Dagmar Paterová, Eva Stodolová and Helena Karafiátová are four Czech n ationals, born in 19 40, 1936, 1933 and 19 4 2 , and living in Prague and Dolní Břežany , respectively. They we re represented before the Court by M s A . Moravcová , a lawyer practising in Prague . 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 16 March 1992 the applicants ’ father brought an action in the Prague 4 District Court ( obvodní soud ) for recovery of property pursuant to the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act.

The restitution proceedings terminated in a decision of the Constitutional Court ( Ústavní soud ) of 30 April 2002 which was notified to the applicants ’ representative on 13 May 2002.

On 5* October 2006 the applicants applied for compensation pursuant to 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

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their restitution case was not dealt with within a reasonable time.

THE LAW

The applicants 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 objected that the length of the proceedings had been lodged outside the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

The applicants disputed the Government ’ s argument.

In their complementary observations, the Government noted that the applicants could have resorted to the compensatory remedy provided for by Act no. 82/1998.

Even assuming that the complaint was introduced within the six-month time-limit as provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, 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 applicants applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended on 5 October 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 Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The remainder of the application must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

Accordingly , it is appropriate to discontinu e the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to reject the remainder of the application.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

             Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President