CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 janvier 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC92CF002 { width:203.63pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 6297/05 by Ladislav MAŇAS and Katerina MAŇASOVÁ against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8   January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Karel Jungwiert,   Volodymyr Butkevych,   Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska,   Javier Borrego Borrego,   Renate Jaeger,   Mark Villiger, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 February 2005, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Ladislav Maňas and Mrs Katarina Maňasová, are two Czech nationals who were born in 1929 and 1931 respectively, and live in Prague. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 26 May 1997 the Prague Regional Commercial Court ( krajský obchodní soud ) declared Wall Street, spol. s r.o. bankrupt, appointed a   trustee in bankruptcy ( správce konkurzní podstaty ) and invited the company’s creditors to submit and prove their claims. On 17 June 1997 the applicants submitted their claims of CZK 200,000 (EUR 7,359 [1] ). In a letter of 3 May 1999 the trustee in bankruptcy informed the applicants that their claims had been confirmed. In reply to the applicants’ complaint of 6 August 2004 about delays in the proceedings, the vice-president of the Prague Municipal Court ( městský soud ), to which the case had been transferred, admitted that the bankruptcy proceedings had been lengthy. On 11 November 2004 the Municipal Court invited the trustee in bankruptcy to complete, clarify and prove a number of facts relating to the bankruptcy proceedings. On 22 May 2006 the Municipal Court approved a final report on the realisation of the assets in bankruptcy. On an unspecified date in 2006 the High Court upheld the approval. On 15 March 2007 the applicants applied for compensation pursuant to Act no. 82/1998 as amended. In a letter of 13 June 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed them that their application had been accepted, and that a   finding of a violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time constituted in itself sufficient satisfaction for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage they might have sustained. On 24 July 2007 the applicants informed the Registry that they did not intend to turn to a court under section 15(2) of Act no. 82/1998 as amended. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the allegedly excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out in the Court’s decision in the case of Vokurka v. Czech Republic , no.   40552/02 (dec.), §§   11-24, 16   October 2007). COMPLAINT The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the bankruptcy proceedings which had caused them financial loss. THE LAW The applicants argued that the length of the bankruptcy proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal. ” The Court notes that sections 13 and 31a of Act no. 82/1998 as amended provide for compensation for moral prejudice caused by an irregularity in the conduct of proceedings, including non-compliance with the obligation to perform an act or to adopt a decision within a reasonable time. When using the notion of “reasonable time”, the Act refers to Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. A person who has suffered loss on account of such an irregularity is entitled to damages. The Court has already examined that remedy for the purposes of Article   35 §   1 of the Convention and found it effective in respect of certain complaints about the length of judicial proceedings in the Czech Republic. In particular, it considered that the remedy was capable of providing adequate redress for any breach of the reasonable time requirement that has already occurred. The Court also specified that the applicants whose claims for damages had been dismissed by the Ministry of Justice or had been only partly granted had to file a civil action against the State before competent courts in order to exhaust domestic remedies in this respect (see Vokurka v.   Czech Republic, cited above, §§   58-65). Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the applicants, after having been informed by the Ministry of Justice that the finding of the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time constituted a   sufficient satisfaction, did not file the civil action which was open to them under section 15(2) of Act no. 82/1998 as amended. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The application must therefore be declared inadmissible according to Article   35 §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President   [1] 1 EUR = 27.21 CZK