FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 27713/03 by Milan FARSKÝ 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 25 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 applicant, Mr Milan Farský, is a Czech national who was born in 1953 and lives in Teplice . 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.

The applicant worked for a State enterprise. In 1986 he submitted a proposal for improvement which was subsequently adopted and used by the enterprise. However, the applicant ’ s copyright was never officially approved and royalties were never paid to him.

On 19 April 1990 the applicant filed an action with the Ostrava District Court ( okresní soud ) against the enterprise, claiming compensation for the use of his improvement.

On an unspecified date, the applicant withdrew his action, the enterprise having promised to compensate him.

As the enterprise had not fulfilled its promise, the applicant brought a new action on 26 June 1990.

On 3 March 1995 the Prague High Court ( Vrchní soud ) referred the case to the Teplice District Court which in an interim judgment of 26 September 2000 accepted the legitimacy of the applicant ’ s claim.

On 29 June 2001 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court ( krajský soud ) quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the District Court which, on 2 April 2002, again declared the applicant ’ s claim justified.

On 10 April 2003 the Regional Court upheld the District Court ’ s judgment which became final on 25 May 2003.

On 22 July 2003 the applicant quantified his claim for compensation.

In a judgment of 14 December 2004 the District Court partly granted the applicant ’ s action. The defendant filed an appeal but withdrew it on 1 April 2005. The Regional Court stayed the proceedings on 29 April 2005.

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

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings .

He further complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been discriminated against.

THE LAW

1. The applicant ’ s first complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 29 June 1990 and ended on 29 April 2005 with the decision of the Regional Court . The Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration only began on 18 March 1992, when the recognition by the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic , to which the Czech Republic is one of the successor States, of the right of individual petition took effect.

According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is 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 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 Cou r t 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 Artic le 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 second complaint concerns the alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention.

The Court is of the opinion that, even assuming that in this respect the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, and to the extent that this complaints has been substantiated, there is no indication in the case file that the applicant ’ s rights under this provision have not been respected.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 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