SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 32232/04 
by Josef BOHÁČ 
against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21 March 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J.-P. Costa, President
 Mr A.B. Baka
 Mr R. Türmen
 Mr K. Jungwiert
 Mr M. Ugrekhelidze
 Ms D. Jočienė, 
 Mr D. Popović, judges
 Mr I. Cabral Barreto, 
 Mr V. Butkevych, 
 Mrs A. Mularoni, substitute judges, 
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 August 2004,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Josef Boháč, is a Czech national who was born in 1926 and lives in Ústí nad Labem.

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

The applicant ran business activities in the electro-technical field.

i. Proceedings against T.N.

On an unspecified date in 1994, the applicant sued a certain T.N. in the Ústí nad Labem District Court (okresní soud), claiming that T.N. had not paid for some computer articles collected in December 1991.

In a judgment of 21 September 2004, the District Court granted the applicant’s action and ordered T.N. to pay CZK 7,500 (EUR 263) to the applicant.

As T.N. had not paid the sum at issue, in April 2005 the applicant requested the District Court to execute the judgment. It appears that the execution proceedings are still pending.

ii. Proceedings against B.K.

On an unspecified date in 1996, the applicant brought an action for damages against a certain B.K., one of his employees. He claimed that B.K. had stolen a video camera from his enterprise. According to the applicant, the proceedings are still pending.

iii. Proceedings against A.L.

On an unspecified day in 1994, the applicant brought an action against a certain A.L. for payment of CZK 108,285 (EUR 3,800). On 23 June 1994, the District Court ordered A.L. to pay the sum requested.

On 21 October 1996 the District Court ordered execution of the aforesaid payment order.

On 8 July 1997, 1 and 6 October 1998 a bailiff tried to draw up a list of the debtor’s movable property.

On 9 February 2001 the District Court invited the applicant to indicate, within eight days, an address at which the debtor’s property could be found. However, the applicant did not reply.

In a decision of 6 March 2001 the court discontinued the execution proceedings, no property having been found.

On 29 June 2001 it appointed a guardian in order to notify this decision to the debtor.

iv. Bank dispute

The applicant deposited in his bank account with a private bank a total of CZK 2,032,094 (EUR 71,327).

In 2003 the bank went bankrupt. The applicant was partly compensated from the deposit insurance fund. He underlines that this contributed to difficulties for his enterprise and the cessation of his business activities. According to the applicant, his family lost CZK 4,158,970 (EUR 145,981).

COMPLAINTS

1. Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant alleges a violation of his property rights. He claims negligence on the part of the State, which failed to supervise the bank properly.

2. The applicant further complains of the length of the aforesaid proceedings.

THE LAW

1. Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant alleges a violation of his property rights. He claims negligence on the part of the State, which failed to supervise the bank properly.

Under Article 35 of the Convention the Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted.

The Court observes that the applicant did not raise these matters before the competent judicial authorities, including the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded that he took reasonable steps to bring his complaints to the attention of the judicial authorities or to obtain available redress.

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

2. The applicant further complains of the length of the aforesaid proceedings.

The Court considers that this complaint should be examined 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...”

i. As regards the civil proceedings brought against T.N. and B.K. respectively, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of the complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

ii. In respect of the proceedings instituted against A.L., the Court recalls that under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention it may only deal with matters which have been brought to its attention within six months from the decision or incident which is the subject-matter of the complaint.

The Court observes that the proceedings were discontinued on 6 March 2001, whereas the applicant lodged the present application with the Court on 31 August 2004.

It follows that this part of the application has to be rejected as being introduced outside the six months’ time-limit under 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 civil proceedings brought against T.N. and B.K. respectively;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa  
 Registrar President

BOHÁČ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC DECISION


BOHÁČ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC DECISION