FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 1658/05 by Josef HRUBÝ against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 29 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, Snejana Botoucharova , Karel Jungwiert , Volodymyr Butkevych , Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska , Rait Maruste , Mark Villiger , judges, and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 January 2005,

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 decision to grant priority to the above application unde r Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,

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 ap plicant, Mr Josef Hrubý, is a Czech national who was born in 1931 and lives in Hranice Na Morav ě . He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Skř ipsk ý , a lawyer practising in Ostrava . 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 15 October 1992 the applicant was a rrested and charged with fraud. Two days later, his detention on remand was ordered.

On 11 March 1993 t he applicant was released. On 22 May 1995, together with four other persons, the applicant was indicted before the Ostrava Regional Court ( krajský soud ).

In a judgment of 29 April 2004 the Regional Court acquitted the applicant. The judgment became final on 2 8 October 2004.

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).

COMPLAINT

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

THE LAW

The applicant 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:

“I n the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... 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 case, the Court observes that the applicant applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended on 17 July 2007 and that the compensation proceedings have not yet been terminated.

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.

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