The State party’s submission on admissibility and merits presented his restitution claim to the ‘liable persons’ or, as applicable, to the ordinary courts of the Czech Republic, nor has he shown that he presented the claim within the time limit specified in Section 5 of Act No. 87/1991. Thus, he has clearly failed to exhaust domestic remedies. 4.1 On 11 August 2006, the State party commented on the admissibility and merits of the communication. On the facts, the State party clarifies that the author apparently did not regain Czech citizenship, and that on 18 April 1994, he applied to the Constitutional Court in a submission designated as “an action against the violation of human rights and submittal of a petition for an amendment of the law”. In this submission, he sought the repeal and amendment of certain provisions of Act No. 87/1991 on Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations, the restitution of his property, and compensation for his rights in rem and inheritance rights amounting to more than US$ 50 million. On 29 November 1995, the Constitutional Court dismissed his application, and on 4 March 1996, the Constitutional Court set aside the author’s complaint against the 29 November 1995 decision. 4.4 As regards the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the author deprived himself of the opportunity for the Court to consider, and decide on, his petition. The author’s application to the Court of 18 April 1994 suffered from procedural defects that prevented the Court from considering it. 4 The author did not submit a copy of the decision on the latest remedy provided by the law for the protection of his rights, and omitted to be represented by a lawyer (a requirement before the Constitutional Court). As a result, he was requested by the Constitutional Court, on 22 June 1994, to remedy these defects. In his reply, he merely presented additional reflections de lege ferenda on the issue of Czech restitution legislation, and the defects in his petition were not remedied. Therefore, on 29 November 1995, the Constitutional Court dismissed his application.5 4.2 The State party recalls that Section 1 of Act No. 87/1991 applies to the mitigation of certain property and other injustices which arose in the period from 25 February 1948 to 1 January 1990. The Act lays down preconditions for raising claims relating to forfeiture of property and items, as well as the rules governing compensation, and the scope of such claims. Under Section 2, the forfeited property or item is either surrendered, or financial compensation is provided. Pursuant to Section 3, subsection 1, ‘eligible persons’ are those persons who were rehabilitated under Act No. 119/1990, whose property item passed into State ownership in specified instances, provided the person is a Czech or Slovak citizen. The person liable to surrender the property, as defined by Section 4, must surrender the property item upon a request made in writing by the eligible person, who has proved his entitlement to the property item and who has specified how the State came to have the item. If the item is a movable item, the eligible person must also prove where the movable is situated. Section 5, subsection 2, provides that the eligible person must request the liable person to surrender the property item within six months of the entry into force of the Act. If the liable person fails to surrender the property item, the eligible person may bring his claims to a court within one year. Further, Section 8 of the Act specifies that the eligible person has a right to financial compensation if the property item is not surrendered to him. An application in writing for financial compensation must be filed within one year of the entry into force of the Act, or within one year of the day of the judgement whereby the request for surrender of the item was rejected. 4 The State party explains that Section 30, subsection 1, of Act No.182/1993 on the Constitutional Court provides that natural and legal persons, as parties or enjoined parties to proceedings before the Constitutional Court, shall be represented by a barrister, or a commercial lawyer, or a notary public. Section 34, subsection 1, of the Act provides that the petition for the initiation of proceedings shall be lodged with the Constitutional Court in writing. The petition must clearly indicate the person lodging the petition, what matter the petition concerns, and what the petition pursues. The petition must also be signed and dated. It should contain an account of the relevant facts and evidence referred to. Section 43, subsection 1, provides that the judge rapporteur shall dismiss the petition in a Resolution, without holding a hearing and without calling the parties, (a) if the petitioner has failed the remedy the defects in his petition within the time limit given to him for this purpose, or (b) if the petition was lodged after the time limit stipulated in the law, […] (e) if it is a petition for the consideration of which the Constitutional Court has no competence, or (f) if the petition is inadmissible, unless the law stipulates otherwise. Section 72, subsection 2, provides that a constitutional appeal can be lodged within sixty days. This time limit starts running on the day of the last decision on the latest remedy the law provides for the protection of the right, and if there is no such remedy, on the day on which the fact which is the subject matter of the constitutional appeal arose. Section 75, subsection 1, provides that a constitutional appeal is inadmissible if the appellant has not exhausted all procedural remedies provided by the law for the protection of his rights; a petition for the permission to reopen proceedings is not regarded as such remedy. 5 The State party provides a translation into English of the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, File Ref. II ŪS 62/94-35: the author “failed to lodge his constitutional appeal through a barrister, he failed to prove his membership of the Czech Bar association, and he failed to submit a copy of the decision 4.3 On admissibility, the State party recalls that the author has not proved in any way, whether at the national level or before the Committee, that he 48