SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 59218/00 by Věra RADIMSKÁ against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section) , sitting on 15 October 2002 as a Chamber composed of

         Mr J.-P. Costa , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr Gaukur Jörundsson , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mr V. Butkevych , Mrs W. Thomassen , Mr M. Ugrekhelidze, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar ,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Věra Radimská is a Czech national, who was born in 1920 and lives in Brno. She is represented before the Court by Mr Slezák, a lawyer practising in Brno.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On an unspecified date in 1993 the applicant brought proceedings in the Prague 1 District Court ( o bvodní soud ), seeking, under section 13 of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitation Act, financial compensation for immovable property which had been confiscated from her father and subsequently destroyed by the former communist State.

On 3 December 1997 the District Court called on the applicant to specify, inter alia , the amount of compensation claimed. On 30 March 1998 the court stayed the proceedings as the applicant had failed to respond.

The applicant appealed. She submitted that she had not been in a position to specify the amount of her claim. On 28 August 1998 the Prague Municipal Court ( městský soud ) upheld the District Court’s decision, stating that as the applicant had failed to specify her claim, the latter lacked accuracy, comprehensibility and certainty within the meaning of section 79 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and thus, any capability of being considered by a court of law.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( dovolání ) which was rejected by the Supreme Court ( Nejvyšší soud ) on 6 May 1999. The court stated that only decisions on the merits could be the subject of a review by the Supreme Court, and that the applicant’s appeal on points of law did not fall within any statutory categories on admissibility.

On 11 December 1998 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal ( ústavní stížnost ) , which was rejected as unsubstantiated on 9 December 1999 by the Constitutional Court ( Ústavní soud ), endorsing the reasons for the ordinary courts’ decisions. This decision was served on the applicant on 14 December 1999.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. The Code of Civil Procedure (version in force at the material time)

According to section 43 (1), the presiding judge shall invite the parties to amend an incorrect action, or supplement an incomplete action. He shall also advise the parties how to effect this.

According to section 43 (2), if the action is not amended or supplemented after such an invitation, the proceedings cannot be continued because of this defect and the court shall stay the proceedings. Each party must be advised of these consequences.

According to section 79 (1), proceedings are initiated on the basis of a motion. The motion should include, apart from general requisites (section 42 § 4), the names, occupation and addresses of the parties and/or of their representatives, a description of the decisive facts, specification of the evidence referred to by the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s demands.

2. Extrajudicial Rehabilitation Act (Law no. 87/1991)

Section 1 provides that the purpose of the Act is to mitigate the effects of certain wrongs ( zmírnění následků některých majetkových a jiných křivd ) committed between 25 February 1948 and 1 January 1990 (“the prescribed period”) which were incompatible with the principles of a democratic society respecting the rights of citizens as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Act also lays down the conditions for lodging claims arising from quashed confiscation decisions, and also the method of redress and the scope of such claims.

Section 2 provides that infringements of property rights which occurred during the prescribed period are to be redressed either by the restitution of property or by financial compensation ( vydání věci nebo poskytnutí finanční náhrady ).

Section 8 (5) provides that where such property cannot be returned for the reasons listed in paragraphs 1 to 4, the entitled person is to receive financial compensation in accordance with section 13.

Section 13 (1) provides, in particular, that an entitled person may not receive financial compensation unless the restitution of immovable property is impossible.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court considered her appeal unfairly. She submits that it failed to examine her ability to assess the value of the immovable property which did not exist at the material time  and for which she had claimed financial compensation.

She also complains that the Prague 1 District Court took more than five years to give a decision which, in any event, was confined to dismissing her action on the ground that she had not supplemented her action as to the amount of the compensation claimed.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains about unfairness in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. She invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, insofar as relevant reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law ...”

The Court first notes that according to its case-law, Article 6 § 1 applies to proceedings before Constitutional Courts (see the Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262, p. 18, §§ 31-32; the Süßmann v. Germany judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions , 1996-IV, p. 1172, §§ 43-45; the Pammel v. Germany judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, pp. 1109-10, §§ 53-57;  the Probstmeier v. Germany judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, pp. 1135-36, § 48-53; and Krčmář and others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 36).

In the present case the Court notes that the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal because, according to the lower courts, the applicant had not supplemented her action for financial compensation by specifying the amount claimed. The Constitutional Court stated that the applicant’s appeal did not give rise to an issue under Article 6 § 1, endorsing the statement of the facts and legal reasoning of the ordinary courts.

In so far as the applicant’s complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of the evidence and the outcome of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the Court recalls that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).

The Court observes that the Constitutional Court examined the applicant’s case in a careful and extensively reasoned manner and that there is nothing to show that it arbitrarily disregarded relevant arguments or submissions the cognisance of which would have necessarily led to a decision in the applicant’s favour. As to the fact that the Constitutional Court endorsed the reasoning of the ordinary courts, the Court recalls that, although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see the above-mentioned García Ruiz judgment, § 26). The Court concludes that the present case discloses no appearance that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court did not comply with Article 6 § 1 of the  Convention. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

2. The applicant also complains under the same Convention provision that her action for financial compensation was not considered within a reasonable time.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the proceedings ;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa Registrar President