FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 28420/04 by Ji ří JEDLIČKA against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, Snejana Botoucharova , Karel Jungwiert , Rait Maruste , Javier Borrego Borrego , Renate Jaeger , Mark Villiger , judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 July 2004,

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 Ji ří Jedlička, is a Czech national who was born in 1954 and lives in P ř erov. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represe nted 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 November 1999 the applicant ’ s company concluded a contract to provide a sub-delivery of building operations within a large construction project carried out by the company S. The applicant ’ s company provided all the contracted work in due time and quality, and invoiced the company S., but payment did not follow.

On 6 December 2000 the applicant ’ s company brought an action against the company S. in the Brno Regional Commercial Court ( krajský obchodní soud ) .

On 15 October 2003 the court issued a payment order against the company S. However, the latter filed a protest against the order which consequently did not become effective.

On 22 July 2004 bankruptcy proceedings were instituted against the company S . The civil proceedings were therefore suspended ex lege .

On 28 February 2005 the court received a proposal of the applicant ’ s company to modify its action.

In appears that the civil proceedings instituted by the applicant ’ s company against the company S., which is now in liquidation, have not yet ended.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the Court ’ s decision in the case of Vokurka v. Czech Republic , no. 40552/02 (dec.), §§ 11-24, 16 October 2007).

COMPLAINTS

Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complain ed of the length of the civil proceedings which had negatively affected h is property rights.

He further invoke d Article 17 of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant ’ s first complaint relates to the length of the proceedings which , a ccording to the applicant, is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in A rticle 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 applicant did not wish to use this remedy.

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).

However, the applicant despite having been informed by the Court of the possibility of using this remedy maintained that he should not be required to exhaust such a remedy. It thus appears that he has chosen not to avail himself of this remedy.

The Court therefore 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 by declared inadmissible according to Article 35 §§ 4 of the Convention.

2. The applicant further alleged a violation of Article 17 of the Convention and his property rights as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

However, the Court observes that the proceedings in the present case seem to be pending. It therefore finds that this part of the application is premature and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 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