FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 29725/11 Josef HAVELKA against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 November 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Angelika Nußberger , President, André Potocki , Aleš Pejchal , judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 April 2011,

Having regard to the comments submitted by the Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Josef Havelka , is a Czech national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Rychnov .

The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm , of the Ministry of Justice .

On 17 July 1998, the applicant sued his former lawyer seeking compensation for damage caused by a breach of the latter ’ s obligations. Two judgments of the Liberec District Court were subsequently quashed by the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court . On 19 December 2005, the District Court granted the applicant ’ s action by an interim judgment, which was upheld by the Regional Court on 19 February 2009. The proceedings are still pending.

As a result of his claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the length of the abo ve proceedings, filed under Act No 82/1998, the applicant was awarded CZK 60,000 (EUR 2,386) by the Czech authorities.

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length and unfairness of the proceedings.

By letter dated 12 July 2011, the applicant was informed that the President of the Section had decided that notice of the application should be given to the Government. By this letter, as well as by the explanatory note in Czech attached thereto, he was informed that at this stage of the proceedings, according to Rule 34 § 3 of the Rules of Court, all communications of applicants or their representatives should as a rule be made in one of the Court ’ s official languages. The applicant was also advised that pursuant to Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 of the Rules of Court, he was required to be represented by an “advocate” before the Court. He was therefore invited to appoint an advocate and complete and return a form of authority by 16 August 2011.

By letter delivered to the Court on 28 July 2011, the applicant asked the Court to send him the Czech version of the letter of 12 July 2011 and of the Statement of facts prepared by the Registry. He maintained that he had a right to receive all the communication in Czech, as was the case in his previous applications.

On 22 August 2011, the Registry informed the applicant, in Czech and in English, that the President of the Section had considered his letter as an implicit request for leave to use Czech language in the written procedure and had granted him such leave. The applicant ’ s attention was however drawn to the fact that, according to Rule 34 § 3, all communication between him and the Court would still be conducted in one of the Court ’ s official languages and that the Court could not provide him with a Czech translation of the documents concerning his case.

On 10 November 2011, the Government ’ s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 22 December 2011. The same deadline was given to the applicant for appointing a representative and submitting a completed form of authority. However, no response to this letter has been received.

By letter dated 22 March 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received this letter on 28 March 2012.

By letter dated 10 May 2012 and written in English, the applicant complained that, despite the fact that he had filled in the relevant application forms in Czech, the Court had reacted only in English to his applications nos. 42666/10, 61523/10, 7332/10 and 29725/11, while in other applications (namely the application no. 28192/07 that he had filed on behalf of a housing cooperative) correspondence had been conducted in Czech.

By letter dated 30 May 2012, written in Czech and in English, the Registry drew again the applicant ’ s attention to Rules 34 §§ 1-3 and 54 of the Rules of Court and sent him the Czech version of these rules.

No further correspondence has been received from the applicant.

THE LAW

The Court notes that, without any explanation for his conduct, except for his request that all the communication be conducted in Czech, the applicant did not comply with the requirement of proper legal representation and did not submit any observations in response to those of the Government. In these circumstances, the Court cannot but conclude that the applicant has failed to participate effectively in the proceedings, within the meaning of Rule 44C of the Rules of Court (see, mutatis mutandis , Filatov v. Ukraine ( dec .), no. 16061/05, 24 March 2009).

For these reasons, the Court finds it established that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention) (see, mutatis mutandis , R.W. v. the Netherlands ( dec .), no. 37281/05, 14 September 2010). Furtherm ore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.

Consequently, the Court considers the present application should be struck out of its list of cases.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Stephen Phillips Angelika Nußberger Deputy Registrar President