FIFTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 27907/03 
by Miloslav FOREJT 
against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 3 April 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr P. Lorenzen, President
 Mrs S. Botoucharova
 Mr K. Jungwiert
 Mr V. Butkevych
 Mr R. Maruste
 Mr J. Borrego Borrego, 
 Mrs R. Jaeger, judges
and Ms C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 August 2003,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Miloslav Forejt, is a Czech national who was born in 1937 and lives in Plzeň.

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

On 14 May 1996 the applicant brought an action before the Plzeň-město District Court (okresní soud) against the State claiming damages under the State Liability Act. He referred to two allegedly incorrect and unlawful expert medical opinions drawn up by experts in psychiatry without having sufficiently examined the applicant’s condition. The action was notified to the court on 16 May 1996.

On 12 March and 16 June 1997 respectively, the applicant supplemented his action.

In a judgment of 12 April 1999, after having held a hearing, the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action.

On an unspecified date, the applicant appealed to the Plzeň Regional Court (krajský soud) which, on 28 November 2002, quashed the District Court’s judgment and remitted the case to the first instance court finding, inter alia, that proceedings concerning the applicant’s legal capacity to act (způsobilost k právním úkonům) had been pending.

It appears that the proceedings for damages are still pending.

COMPLAINTS

Invoking Articles 1, 6 § 1, 7, 10, 14 and 17 of the Convention and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7, the applicant complains that the proceedings have lasted an unreasonably long time. He further complains that the domestic courts did not act independently, and that they treated him inhumanly and in a discriminatory manner. Moreover, a guardian who had been appointed for him never attended the court hearing. He submits that due to the unlawful evaluation of his personality, he was forced to leave his home, could not find any permanent employment and, therefore, had to work only as a brigade-worker. He finds it humiliating that he only draws a pension of CZK 2,150, which is well below the living wage.

THE LAW

The applicant alleges a violation of his rights guaranteed by Articles 1, 6 § 1, 7, 10, 14 and 17 of the Convention and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7.

i. As to the length of the proceedings for damages, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

ii. In respect of the applicant’s remaining complaints, the Court notes that the proceedings for damages initiated by the applicant in May 1996 have not yet been terminated. Hence, the applicant’s complaints to the Court are premature.

The Court adds that since the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Akdivar and others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, §§ 65-66), it is not for it to speculate on the outcome of the proceedings which are currently pending, and the various legal avenues which may become open to the applicant after their termination.

This part of the application must therefore be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen 
 Registrar President

FOREJT v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC DECISION


FOREJT v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC DECISION