FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 26377/03 by Jaroslava KUČEROVÁ 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 , Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska , Rait Maruste , Javier Borrego Borrego , Mark Villiger , judges and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 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 applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applican t, Ms Jaroslava Kučerová, is a Czech national who was born in 1952 and lives in Sedlč any. 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.

1. Administrative proceedings concerning compensation in respect of the livestock, fixtures and fittings

On 4 July 1997 the applicant filed with the Ministry of Agriculture a petition seeking the determination of the person liable for compensation in respect of the livestock, fixtures and fittings. On the same day the Ministry ’ s competent regional department in Benešov commenced administrative proceedings.

On 10 September 1999 the regional department issued a decision holding that the municipality of Vrtochovy Janovice was the person liable for compensation.

On 1 December 2000 the municipality made an agreement with the applicant and a certain M.L. on the provision of compensation. The compensation was to be allocated to the entitled persons by granting one-third to the applicant and two-thirds to M.L.

On 18 February 2002 the Land Fund ( pozemkový fond ) and the applicant made an agreement on financial compensation in respect of the livestock, fixtures and fittings.

2. Judicial proceedings concerning compensation in respect of the livestock, fixtures and fittings

On 6 December 2000 the applicant brought an action against the Land Fund claiming that the compensation in respect of the livestock, fixtures and fittings was insufficient.

On 12 April 2002 the Benešov District Court ( okresní soud ) dismissed the applicant ’ s action. On 8 July 2002 the Regional Court partly quashed and partly upheld the first instance decision, and sent the relevant part of the case back to the District Court. In the reasoning of its decision the Court noted that the applicant had supplemented her action through her appeal in respect of the compensation for the property not surrendered, but not in respect of the compensation for the livestock, fixtures and fittings. The Regional Court ’ s decision became final on 29 July 2002.

On 12 August 2002 the District Court stayed the proceedings. On 17 December 2002 the Prague Regional Court ( krajský soud ) quashed this decision.

On 10 February 2003 the District Court decided that it was not territorially competent to deal with the applicant ’ s action, which should be transferred to the Prague 1 District Court ( obvodní soud ). The latter, however, did not agree with the referral of the case to it and, on 26 July 2003, submitted the case to the Prague Municipal Court ( městský soud ). On 23 September 2003 the latter held that the disagreement of the District Court, that the case be transferred to it, was well-founded.

In a judgment of 14 October 2005 the District Court, to which the case had been remitted, dismissed the applicant ’ s claims. The applicant appealed.

It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Regional Court .

3. Proceedings concerning the passage of the title to real estates

On 10 September 1997 the applicant brought before the District Court an action against R.V. seeking to decide on the passage of the title to certain real estates to her and two other persons.

On 20 August 1998 the District Court discontinued the proceedings.

On 30 November 1998 the Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the District Court which, in a judgment of 1 July 1999, rejected the applicant ’ s action. On 31 December 1999 the Regional Court quashed this judgment and sent the case back to the District Court which, on 19 June 2001, again dismissed the applicant ’ s action.

On 23 January 2002 the Regional Court, upon the parties ’ appeals, quashed the rulings on the merits and on the costs of the proceedings, and remanded the case to the District Court which, on 4 February 2003, upon the applicant ’ s withdrawal of her action, stayed the proceedings. This decision became final on 22 March 2003.

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).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the above proceedings, which, she allege d , had negatively affected her property rights.

THE LAW

The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings in her cases had been in breach of the reasonable time requirement within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which provides, in so far as relevant:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Court observes that the applicant ’ s complaint s relates to the length of three sets of proceedings.

i. It notes that the administrative proceedings ended on 18 February 2002 by the agreement concluded by the applicant and the Land Fund which is, however, more than six months before the date on which the present application was submitted to the Court (15 August 2003).

Thus, this part of the application has been submitted too late and the Court rejects it in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

ii. The Court further observes that the judicial proceedings for compensation began on 6 December 2000 and are still pending. In this respect, it does not accept the Government ’ s argument that the proceedings terminated as early as 29 July 2002. As to the p roceedings concerning the passage of the title to real estates , they began on 10 September 1997 and were terminated on 22 March 2003 when the District Court ’ s decision of 4 February 2003 became final.

The Government maintained that the applicant could have resorted to the compensatory remedy provided for by Act no. 82/1998 and, therefore, failed to exhaust domestic remedies available to her.

The Court has already examined that remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and found it effective in respect of complaints about the excessive length of judicial proceedings in the Czech Republic . In particular, it considered that it 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 she did not wish to use such a remedy. It thus appears that she has chosen not to avail herself 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 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.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application in admissible.

             Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President