CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 26 février 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .s267B8157 { width:220.81pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 76802/01 by Josef HRADECKÝ against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26   February 2002 as a Chamber composed of [Note1]   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni , judges ,   and   Mrs   S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced on 13 August 2001 and registered on 22 November 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows:                         THE FACTS The applicant, Josef Hradecký, is a Czech [Note2] national born in 1946 and living in Prague. He is represented before the Court by Mr Jiří Slezák, a lawyer practising in Prague. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In September 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud under sections 250(1) and 250(4) of the Criminal Code. On an unspecified date in 1995 he was released. On 22 January 1996 he was heard by a police investigator (vyšetřovatel policie) . On 21 June 1996 the Prague Municipal Prosecutor (městský státní zástupce) agreed, upon the applicant’s repeated complaints about delays in the criminal investigation, that as far as the period between March and May   1996 was concerned, his complaints were substantiated. She assured the applicant that the necessary measures would be adopted to speed up the criminal proceedings. On 26 November 1996 the applicant was arrested, together with three other persons, including his son who was charged with participation in the same fraud offence. On 28 November 1996 the Prague 10 District Court (okresní soud) ordered the detention on remand of the applicant and his son, pursuant to sections 67(a) and 67(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the same date, the applicant gave a statement to the police investigator. The applicant’s son, having refused to give a statement on 26   November   1996, was heard again on 28 November 1996 when he claimed that he had acted under the influence of his father. According to the applicant, he was told by the police investigator that if he did not plead guilty his son would stay in detention and be brought before the court. The applicant, therefore, admitted that he had committed the offence. On 5 December 1996 the applicant’s son was released from custody. On 12 December 1996 the applicant was again interrogated by the police investigator. The applicant was released before Christmas 1996. On 23 April 1997 the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant’s son were stayed by the police investigator. According to the applicant, the investigation proceedings ended in 1997 and, on an unspecified date in 1998, he and his two co-accused were officially indicted. On 16 June 1998 the main hearing took place before the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud). On 6 August 2001 the Municipal Court convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. On 10 September 2001 the applicant appealed against this judgment to the Prague High Court (Vrchní soud) . The proceedings are still pending before this jurisdiction. [1] COMPLAINTS 1. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the criminal case brought against him was not dealt with by the domestic authorities fairly and within a reasonable time. 2. He also complains that he did not have at his disposal any effective domestic remedy for the protection of his rights as provided for in Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW 1. The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial was breached in the criminal proceedings brought against him and that he did not have at his disposal any effective domestic remedy for protection of his rights. Given the fact that the criminal proceedings in the present case are still pending, and that any assessment of complaints of fairness of these proceedings under Article 6 of the Convention must be made in the light of the proceedings as a whole, the Court concludes that the applicant’s complaint concerning the lack of a fair trial and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect is premature and must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded at this stage, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 2. Invoking the same provisions of the Convention, the applicant also complains that the criminal proceedings have lasted for an unreasonably long 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 the 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 complaints that the criminal proceedings against him have lasted for an unreasonably long time and that he has no domestic remedy against the length of the proceedings in his case; Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.   S. Dollé   J.-P.Costa   Registrar   President [1] Length of the proceedings: 6 years and 3 months, and still pending before the second instance court [Note1]   Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via Alt+S please REMOVE the substitute judge’s names, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Registrar.) [Note2]   To be checked.