Published on 7 June 202 1

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 54355/15 Ji ří PETR against the Czech Republic lodged on 26 October 2015 communicated on 21 May 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Jiří Petr, is a Czech national, who was born in 1956, and lives in Rybí . He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Fojtík , a lawyer practising in Kopřivnice .

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

3 . On 7 May 2004 at 9.00 a.m. the Police detained the applicant on suspicion of two criminal acts, that is of attempted counterfeiting and altering of money in the first case, and of counterfeiting and altering of money in connection with attempted counterfeiting and altering of money and preparation for fraud in the second case, punishable by 10 to 15 years ’ imprisonment. At 8.02 p.m. the applicant was charged with the aforementioned crimes .

4 . On 9 May 2004 a judge of the Ostrava District Court ( Okresní soud v Ostravě ) took the applicant into custody while not accepting either his written promise or monetary security. The applicant appealed against this decision, but the Ostrava Regional Court ( Krajský soud v. Ostravě ) upheld the decision on 31 May 2004.

5 . On 13 July 2004 the applicant lodged an application for his release from custody and offered a written promise and monetary security to support his release. However, on 23 July 2004 a judge of the Ostrava District Court dismissed his application.

6 . On 16 August 2004 the applicant lodged once again an application for his release from custody and offered a written promise and monetary security. On 24 August 2004 a prosecutor of the Ostrava Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office ( Krajské státní zastupitelství v Ostravě ) released the applicant from custody, this time accepting his written promise and monetary security.

7 . On 6 October 2006 the Ostrava Regional Court acquitted the applicant on all points by its judgment no. 36T 3/2005-2924. The prosecutor appealed the decision. On 31 May 2007 the Olomouc High Court ( Vrchní soud v Olomouci ) quashed the judgment and remitted the case back to the court of first instance for fresh examination.

8 . On 25 June 2010 the Ostrava Regional Court gave its second judgment, no. 36T 3/2005-3475, by which it acquitted the applicant again. The prosecutor appealed against the decision. On 25 January 2011 the Olomouc High Court dismissed the appeal by its decision no. 4To 51/2010-3591, which became final.

9 . On 13 July 2011 the applicant brought a claim to the Ministry of Justice for 1,000,000 Czech korunas (CZK) (41,244 euros (EUR)) as just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage caused by the unsubstantiated criminal prosecution.

10 . On 8 November 2012 the applicant lodged an action with the Prague 2 District Court ( Obvodní soud pro Prahu 2 ) claiming CZK 1,000,000 (EUR 41,244) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, in particular CZK 200,000 (EUR 8,249) for his detention in custody, CZK 200,000 (EUR 8,249) for the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him and CZK 600,000 (EUR 24,746) for an unlawful decision and for harm suffered in connection with that decision. In the course of the proceedings, the aforementioned court awarded the applicant CZK 55,000 (EUR 2,268) in respect of compensation for the detention (CZK 500 (EUR 20,60) for each day of the detention) in respect of his application of 13 July 2011.

11 . On 8 November 2012 the district court partly dismissed the claim but awarded the applicant CZK 300,000 (EUR 12,366) for the decision to institute criminal proceedings which had damaged his reputation and had negative consequences for his private and professional life. Furthermore, it awarded the applicant CZK 100,000 (EUR 4,122) on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings (which lasted for 6 years and 8 months). In making this award the district court had regard to the complexity of the proceedings (there were other co-defendants, a large volume of evidence and there was also a need for judicial cooperation with foreign countries), and also took into account that, on the one hand, the applicant had not contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings but, on the other, he had taken no steps to expedite them. Lastly, it awarded the applicant CZK 55,000 (EUR 2,267) in damages for his detention on the ground that the criminal proceedings led to his acquittal, in addition to the same amount which had already been paid to the applicant by the authorities.

12 . On 30 April 2013, the Prague Municipal Court ( Městský soud v Praze ) reversed the first-instance court ’ s judgment in relation to the decision to institute criminal proceedings and the subsequent length of those proceedings, and overturned the decision to award damages. It considered that in the circumstances of the case the criminal proceedings had not been excessively lengthy and that the claim for non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant on account of the circumstances of his arrest was not plausible and had not been proven. In respect of the award of CZK 55,000 for the applicant ’ s detention it held that the compensation paid to him by the State had been proportionate and that therefore there was no need for any additional award.

13 . On 27 October 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. However, the Supreme Court ( Nejvyšší soud ) rejected it as inadmissible on 19 May 2015. The Supreme Court stated that the applicant contested the municipal court ’ s conclusions, but his mere disagreement with the decision did not establish grounds for appeal on points of law. Nor had he come up with any other relevant argument that would support his appeal on points of law.

14 . On 29 June 2015 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. He argued that the conclusions of the municipal court, in particular the interpretation of the applicable legal criteria entailing the dismissal of his claim, which were not remedied by the Supreme Court, had been so utterly ill-fitting that they warranted an interference from the Constitutional Court. In addition, he argued that the Prague Municipal Court and the Supreme Court had violated his right to a fair trial since the Prague Municipal Court had not given complete and convincing reasoning on law and fact as it had neither reviewed the evidence taken before the court of first instance, nor carried out a further review of its own accord; instead, it had stated that the applicant ’ s allegations were not plausible and remained unproven.

15 . On 31 August 2015 the Constitutional Court ( Ústavní soud ) rejected the appeal as manifestly ill-founded as neither the applicant ’ s right to a fair trial nor any other constitutionally safeguarded rights had been violated. It concluded that the courts gave full reasons in their decisions and that the applicant only contested their conclusions.

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out in the Court ’ s decision in the case of Vokurka v. the Czech Republic (( dec. ), no. 40552/02, §§ 11 ‑ 24, 16 October 2007).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.

The applicant further complains that he had no effective remedy to obtain redress for the excessive length of proceedings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?