FIFTH SE C TION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application s no s . 918/04, 925/04, 1211/04 and 3146/04 by Petr KAFKA 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 , Rait Maruste , Renate Jaeger , Mark Villiger , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre , judges, and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application s lodged on 19 December 2003 (no. 918/04), 15 December 2003 (no. 925/04), 2 January 2004 (no. 1211/04) and 14 January 2004 (no. 3146/04) ,

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 applican t, Mr Petr Kafka, is a Czech national who was born in 1949 and lives in Varnsdorf. 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.

Application no. 918/04

On 5 May 1998 the applicant brought a civil action against his former employer seeking to quash an a ppraisal report of him.

It appears that the proceedings are still pending.

Application no. 925/04

On 3 June 1998 the applicant filed a civil action against his former employer for the payment of CZK 4,736 (application no. 925/04).

The proceedings terminated with a decision of the Constitutional Court of 8 December 2004.

Application no. 1211/04

On 20 July 1998 the applicant brought a civil action seeking to quash an employee ’ s card issued by his former employer on 2 April 1998 and the delivery of a new card alleging that the period of employment was wrongly recorded . On 25 May 2000 the District Court suspended the case pending the outcome of the proceedings instituted by the applicant against his former employer for the payment of CZK 4,736 ( application no. 925/04 ).

On 18 May 2005 the court resumed the proceedings which seem to be still pending.

Application no. 3146/04

On 13 April 2000 the applicant issued proceedings for damages against the Jiříkov Reformatory Institution for Children and Juveniles ( Východný ústav pro děti a mládež ) which are still pending.

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).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the above proceedings . In application no. 925/04 he also complained that his action had not been dealt with by an independent and impartial tribunal .

THE LAW

1. The Court first considers that, under Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background.

2 . The applicant first complained about the excessive length of the above 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. 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).

Turning to the present cases, the Court observes that the applicant applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended on various dates in June and July 2006. On 11 October 2006 the Ministry of Justice awarded him CZK 173,000 (EUR 6,656 [1] ). On 12 November 2007 the applicant informed the Court that he had filed civil actions against the State before the Prague 2 District Court. The Court notes that the 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. This part of the application must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

3. In application no. 925/04 the applicant also complained that his action had not been dealt with by an independent and impartial tribunal .

The Court has examined the complaint as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as this complaint falls within its competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention.

4. 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

Decides to join the applications;

D eclares th e application s inadmissible.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President

[1] 1 EUR = 26.02 CZK