I ÚS 5/96                              6 Sb.,no.116

 No. 116  On the Inactivity of a Court and Delay in a Judicial
                        Hearing as Some
Other Impingement by Public Authorities under 72 para. 1, lit.
                             a) of
       Act No. 182/1993 Sb., on the Constitutional Court

     Inactivity  by  a  court, or its incommensurate  delay  in
hearing a matter constitute an infringement of Article 38 para.
2  of  the  Charter of Fundamental Rights and  Basic  Freedoms,
according  to  which everybody has the right to have  her  case
considered without unnecessary delay.


                           JUDGMENT

of  the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (Panel I) of
5  November  1996  sp.  zn. I. ÚS 5/96 in  the  matter  of  the
constitutional  complaint  of M.  Č.  and  others  against  the
court’s inactivity and its delay in court proceeding no.  15  C
246/93 of the District Court in Ústí nad Labem.

                         I.  STATEMENT

    The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic requires
the District Court in Ústí nad Labem not to persist in its
delay in the matter conducted before it under the file number
15 C 246/93 and to hear the matter without delay.

                         II. REASONING


    1.   In  their  constitutional complaint,  the  petitioners
object  to  the inactivity of the District Court  in  Ústí  nad
Labem in the matter with file no. 15 C 246/93.  The petitioners
conclude  that, as a result of the District Court’s inactivity,
their   right  to  have  their  complaint  considered   without
unnecessary delay as meant by Article 38 para. 2 of the Charter
of  Fundamental  Rights and Basic Freedoms has  been  violated.
They  ask,  therefore, that a judgment be issued in  which  the
District  Court  in  Ústí nad Labem is instructed  to  order  a
hearing  in the petitioners’ matter, conducted under  the  file
no. 15 C 246/93.
    
    In  essence, therefore, this is a constitutional  complaint
filed against some impingement by public authorities other than
a  decision,  as  a result of which constitutionally-guaranteed
fundamental rights were infringed.
    
    In  their constitutional complaint, the petitioners  assert
that,  until  24  February  1993,  they  were  the  tenants  of
apartments  in Ústí nad Labem - Předlicích.  The owner  of  the
apartments  in question is the municipal division of  Ústí  nad
Labem  1  - City, represented by the Local Office in  Ústí  nad
Labem 1.  On 24 February 1993, the Municipal Police of the city
of  Ústí nad Labem broke into the petitioners’ apartments, and,
with the assistance of employees of the residential division of
the Local Office in Ústí nad Labem, they cleared the apartments
in  question such that the belongings and the furnishings  were
placed  out  on the street, and they compelled the  tenant  and
members  of  their  households to vacate  the  apartments.   In
addition,  the  documents concerning the apartment  were  taken
from  their possession.  Train tickets to Slovakia, as well  as
freight  space for their apartment furnishings, were  purchased
for them, and in the presence of the police they were placed on
a train, which took them off to Slovakia.
    
    The  Local  Office in Ústí nad Labem justified its  conduct
by  pointing  to  the fact that the petitioners  expressed  the
desire  to  vacate the apartments.  Equally, in the context  of
their   arbitrary  resettlement  of  the  petitioners  it   was
considered  that, as Slovak citizens, they should  be  provided
with  apartments  in  Slovakia,  which  did  not  happen.   The
Municipal  Office  in Chmiňanské Jakubovany refused  to  accept
them  into  the territory of Slovakia for the reason that  they
are  probably  Czech citizens.  Consequently,  the  petitioners
sold  off  their property and returned back to Ústí nad  Labem.
Since  they  were  not  permitted to  live  in  their  original
apartments,  they lodged with the District Court  in  Ústí  nad
Labem a complaint requesting a determination that they are  the
lessees  of  apartments  in Ústí nad  Labem  -  Předlicích,  as
indicated  in the complaint, and that the defendant is  obliged
to  give  them access to their apartments and to issue  them  a
lease contract.  In addition, in the complaint they submitted a
petition  seeking  provisional measures that would  allow  them
access  and  use  of the apartments within three  days  of  the
issuance of the provisional measures.  The Local Office in Ústí
nad Labem 1 was designated as the defendant.  The complaint was
filed with the District Court in Ústí nad Labem on 21 May 1993.

     In consequence of a filing error, the complaint requesting
a  determination that lease relations continued was  registered
under  the  file no. 15 C 246/93, and the petition for  issuing
provisional measures was registered separately under  file  no.
15  C  243/93.  In both cases, however, the District  Court  in
Ústí  nad Labem did not take a single step until the time  when
the constitutional complaint was filed.  Then on 9 January 1996
it  made  a  decision  in  the matter of provisional  measures,
namely,  by  ruling  no.  15 C 243/93 of  9  January  1996,  it
dismissed  the  proceeding.  The grounds for its decision  were
that the defendant did not meet the procedural requirements for
the  proceeding,  that is the capacity  to  be  a  party  to  a
proceeding, since the municipal division Ústí nad Labem  (Local
Office in Ústí nad Labem 1) lacks capacity, in the sense  meant
in  the Act on Municipalities, to be a party to a proceeding in
according  with  §  19 of the Civil Procedure  Code.   Then  in
appellate proceedings, the first-instance decision was affirmed
by resolution of the Regional Court in Ústí nad Labem, file no.
10 Co 125/96 of 28 February 1996.

     Despite reminders on the part of the petitioners’  council
in relation to matter 15 C 246/93, that is in the matter of the
determination complaint, as of yet no action has been taken.

     It  is  clear  from the 25 March 1996 and  26  April  1996
memoranda/notes of the District Court in Ústí nad  Labem,  that
that  court  is  cognizant of delays  in  the  proceeding.   It
declares that registering the matter into two files instead  of
into  one  was a flawed manner of proceeding.  In addition,  it
states  that it has not up until now ordered a hearing  in  the
matter  of  the determination complaint, which has resulted  in
demonstrable delay.  It justifies the situation by  citing  the
insufficient  number  of  judges and  the  consequence  arising
therefrom  of overworked judge, who is dealing with this  case.
In  conclusion,  it states that a request for  the  payment  of
court  fees  and for curing defects in the pleading  concerning
the  designation of the defendant will be made in  the  matter.
The  actual decision in the constitutional complaint  it  leave
entirely to the Constitutional Court’s sole discretion.


     2.  In the given case, it was demonstrated entirely beyond
dispute in part by the views expressed by the District Court in
Ústí nad Labem, in part by the content of the attached file  of
the  District  Court in Ústí nad Labem, file no. 15  C  243/93,
that  that  court  truly is considering  and  deciding  on  the
petitioners’  rights in an incommensurate time frame.   Due  to
its inactivity in the matter of file no. 15 C 246/93, the court
thus  impinged  upon the right guaranteed  by  the  Charter  to
judicial  and  other  legal protection, specifically  upon  the
rights  in  Article  38 para. 2 of the Charter  of  Fundamental
Rights  and  Basic  Freedoms.   According  to  this  provision,
everyone  has  the  right to have her case  considered  without
unnecessary  delay, which was not respected in the petitioners’
case.

    In the case of this constitutional complaint, some
impingement other than a decision upon the constitutionally-
guaranteed right enshrined in Article 38 para. 2 of the Charter
of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms was proven, therefore
the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic decided as
stated above.