SECOND SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Applicati o n n o . 59218/00 by V ě ra RADIMSKÁ against the Czech Republic

The Eur o pean C o urt o f Human Rights (Sec o nd Secti o n), sitting o n 23 N o vember 2004 as a Chamber c o mp o sed o f:

Mr J.-P. Costa , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr I. Cabral Barreto , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mr M. Ugrekhelidze , Mrs A. Mularoni , Mrs E. Fura-Sandström , judges ,

and Mrs S. Dollé , Secti o n Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 May 2000 ,

Having regard to the partial decision of 15 October 2002 ,

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, Mrs V ě ra Radimská , was a Czech nati o nal wh o was b o rn in 1920 and lived in Brn o . She was represented bef o re the C o urt by Mr J. Slez á k , a lawyer practising in Brn o . By a letter o f 16 February 2003 the applicant ' s lawyer inf o rmed the C o urt that the applicant had died o n 1 April 2002 and that Mr M . Radimský was her legal success o r. The resp o ndent G o vernment were represented by their Agent, Mr V. A. Sch o rm .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 24 March 1992 the applicant requested the Ministry of Finance under the Extra-judicial Rehabilitation Act for financial compensation for the property which had been confiscated from her father and subsequently destroyed by the former communist regime . Without waiting for the expiration of the six - month period during which the Ministry of Finance was supposed to decide on the matter of compensation, the applicant lodged an action for compensation on 31 March 1992 against the State, represented by the Ministry of Finance, with the Brno Municipal Court ( městský soud ) .

On 9 July 1992 the Ministry o f Finance filed their o bservati o ns o n the applicant ' s acti o n.

On 21 January 1993 the Brno Municipal Court declared itself incompetent for territorial reasons and transferred the case to the Prague 1 District Court ( obvodní soud ) on 11 March 1993 .

On 27 September 1993 the Municipal C o urt, up o n the District C o urt ' s request, heard the applicant after it had adj o urned, up o n her request o r due t o her absence, hearings scheduled f o r 15 June, 13 August and 7 September 1993 .

On 11 April 1994 the District C o urt, up o n the applicant ' s request o f 27 Oct o ber 1993 , stayed the pr o ceedings pending the o utc o me o f three o ther related restituti o n pr o ceedings l o dged with the Municipal C o urt. The District C o urt ' s decisi o n t o o k effect o n 24 May 1994 .

On 20 May 1997 the District Court decided to continue the proceedings despite the fact that the restitution proceedings before the Municipal Court had not yet been closed. The court held that , for the time being, the outcome of those proceedings was not important for its decision on the matter of financial compensation.

Up o n the applicant ' s appeal o f 11 July 1997 and after having received the Ministry o f Finance ' s o bservati o ns o f 25 July 1997 , the Prague Municipal C o urt upheld the District C o urt ' s decisi o n o n 22 August 1997 .

After t he District C o urt had adj o urned at the applicant ' s request a hearing f o reseen f o r 12 N o vember 1997 , it held a n o ther hearing o n 3 December 1997 , at which the applicant again requested that the pr o ceedings be stayed. Furtherm o re, the District C o urt requested her t o supplement her acti o n , which she did o n 29 December 1997 and 5 February 1998 .

On 30 March 1998 the District C o urt disc o ntinued the pr o ceedings because o f the applicant ' s failure t o specify the am o unts which she claimed by way o f c o mpensati o n in respect o f each pr o perty, as requested o n 3 December 1997 .

Up o n the appl icant ' s appeal o f 16 April 1998 and after having received the applicant ' s substantiati o n o f her appeal o f 24 April 1998 and t he Ministry o f Finance ' s o bservati o ns o f 26 May 1998 , the Prague Municipal C o urt upheld the first - instance decisi o n o n 28 August 1998 . On 13 Oct o ber 1998 the Municipal C o urt ' s decisi o n t o o k effect.

On 6 May 1999 the Supreme C o urt ( Nejvyšší s o ud ) rejected the applicant ' s appeal o n p o ints o f law ( d o v o lání ) o f 16 N o vember 1998 since o nly decisi o ns o n the merits c o uld be reviewed by it.

On 9 December 1999 the C o nstituti o nal C o urt ( Ústavní s o ud ) dismissed the applicant ' s c o nstituti o nal appeal ( ústavní stížn o st ) o f 11 December 1998 . On 14 December 1999 this decisi o n was served o n the applicant.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complain s under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement.

THE LAW

The applicant complain s that the length of the proceedings was excessive. She invoke s Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides:

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

The Government first submit that the applicant did not exhaust all domestic remedies available to her.

The C o urt recalls that it h as previ o usly held that there was n o effective remedy under Czech law t o c o mplain ab o ut the length o f civil pr o ceedings ( Hartman v. Czech Republic , n o . 53341/99, § 55-69, ECHR 2003 ‑ VIII). It sees n o reas o n f o r distinguishing the present case fr o m that o f Hartman and dismisses, theref o re, the G o vernment ' s o bjecti o n.

The G o vernment further submit that the pr o ceedings in questi o n were n o t o f fundamen tal imp o rtance f o r the applicant, especially since her right t o claim c o mpensati o n still exists despite the Prague Municipal C o urt ' s decisi o n o f 28 August 1998 .

T he G o vernment state that the subject-matter o f the pr o ceedings was linked t o three o ther sets o f restituti o n pr o ceedings bef o re the Brn o Municipal C o urt and that the length o f the pr o ceedings at issue can be attributed in part t o the applicant ' s c o nduct . They o bserve in this c o nnecti o n that she twice requested an adj o urn ment o f hearing s bef o re the Brn o Municipal C o urt and requested an adj o urnment o f an o ther hearing bef o re the District C o urt. M o re o ver, she and her lawyer failed t o attend tw o hearings with o ut an y excuse and the applicant requested an extensi o n o f the time-limit f o r supplement ing her acti o n . S he eventually supplemented it on 5 February 1998 . The G o vernment further state that the pr o ceedings were stayed up o n the applicant ' s request and that the applicant appealed twice against the first- instance decisi o ns . 

As t o the c o nduct o f the auth o rities, the G o vernment state that the District C o urt decided t o pr o ceed with the case and thus accelerated the c o nduct o f the pr o ceedings des pite the applicant ' s o bjecti o ns.

The applicant submit s that the District Court could have dealt separately with part of her claims in order to accelerate the proceedings. She maintains that her age and state of health should be taken into account wh en assessing her conduct.

The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute ( Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII ).

The peri o d t o be taken int o c o nsiderati o n began o n 31 March 1992 , when the applicant l o dged her acti o n with the Brn o Municipal C o urt and ended o n 14 December 1999 , when the C o nstituti o nal C o urt ' s decisi o n was served o n her . The pr o ceedings thus last ed seven years and eight m o nths bef o re f o ur instances, including a peri o d o f three years and three m o nths fr o m 24 May 1994 t o 22 August 1997 during which they were stayed.

The Court observes that the case was not particularly complex and did not involve an issue of urgent, irremediable or vital importance for the applicant.

As regard s the applicant ' s c o nduct, the C o urt n o tes that she c o ntributed t o the length o f the pr o ceedings as a result o f her requests f o r the adj o urnment o f hearings o r o n acc o unt o f her absence at hearings between 15 June and 7 September 1993 in the Brn o Municipal C o urt and o n 12 N o vember 1997 in the District C o urt . Alth o ugh these adj o urnments may have been cause d by th e applicant ' s age o r ill-health , it is nevertheless the case that the State cann o t be held resp o nsible f o r the c o nsequential delays.

The C o urt n o tes als o that the pr o ceedings were further pr o l o nged by the extensi o n o f the time-limit f o r supplementing the applicant ' s acti o n. Finally, the pr o ceedings were stayed , up o n the applicant ' s request, between 24 May 1994 and 22 August 1997 . The applicant ' s unwillingness t o accelerate the pr o ceedings can be seen fr o m her appeal against the District C o urt ' s decisi o n o f 20 May 1997 t o pr o ceed with the case.

As t o the c o nduct o f the auth o rities, the C o urt o bserves that there was a delay o f appr o ximately six m o nths between 9 July 1992 , when the Ministry o f Finance submitted their o bservati o ns , and 21 January 1993 , when the Brn o Municipal C o urt declared itself inc o mpetent . There was a further peri o d o f delay o f a b o ut six m o nths between the applicant ' s request o f 27 Oct o ber 1993 f o r a stay o f pr o ceedings and the District C o u rt ' s decisi o n o f 11 April 1994 . Nevertheless, it can be c o ncluded that t he pr o ceedings o therwise pr o gressed at a n o rmal pace.      

Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and taking into account the overall duration of the proceedings, the Court finds that the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was complied with in the present case.

It f o ll o ws that the remainder o f the applic ati o n is manifestly ill-f o unded within the meaning o f Article 35 § 3 o f the C o nventi o n and must be rejected in acc o rdance with Article 35 § 4. Acc o rdingly, the applicati o n o f Article 29 § 3 o f the C o nventi o n t o the case sh o uld als o be disc o ntinued.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa Registrar President