Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 138
February 2011
Bratři Zátkové, a.s., v. the Czech Republic (dec.) - 20862/06
Decision 8.2.2011 [Section V]
Article 35
Article 35-3-b
No significant disadvantage
Complaint concerning failure to communicate to applicants observations of civil courts on their constitutional appeals: inadmissible
[This summary also covers the decision in the case of Holub v. the Czech Republic, no. 24880/05, 14 February 2010 ]
Facts – In these two cases the applicants complained that the Constitutional Court had ruled on their constitutional appeals against decisions by the civil courts without previously communicating to them the observations submitted by those courts on their appeals.
Law – Article 35 § 3: this complaint was similar to that raised by the applicants in other cases, in particular Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic,* in which the Court had found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In this case, however, it was appropriate to examine the issue of the failure to communicate the observations and the existence of a “significant disadvantage” in the light of the new admissibility criterion set out in Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention since the entry into force of Protocol No. 14.
(a) Significant disadvantage – In their observations to the Constitutional Court, the courts in question had not provided any additional reasoning to that given in the judgments they had already delivered. The applicants had thus been familiar with the points raised. In addition, it did not appear that the Constitutional Court had relied on those submissions in its decisions. Everything suggested that the applicants’ constitutional appeals would have been dismissed in any event, with or without the observations in question. In addition, the applicants, who complained that they had been unable to respond to the observations in question, did not specify what new arguments they would have wished to raise in addition to those submitted in the constitutional appeals. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the applicants had not suffered a “significant disadvantage” in the exercise of their right to participate properly in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. With regard to the Holub case, the Court specified that the “disadvantage” referred to this latter point, and not to the financial sum at stake in the civil proceedings.
(b) Examination of the application on the merits – Following the Court’s judgment in Milatová and Others, the Constitutional Court had reviewed its practice. Thus, it had been recommended to judge rapporteurs that they send the parties’ observations to the applicants, with a time-limit for their response, if those observations contained new facts, allegations or arguments, even where a doubt existed on the latter point. Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers had held that the Czech Republic had discharged its obligation to take the necessary measures for execution of the Milatová and Others judgment.** Thus, the applications in the present case did not raise serious questions concerning the application or interpretation of the Convention, or important issues concerning the domestic law. Respect for human rights did not therefore require examination of the applicants’ complaints.
(c) Due consideration by a domestic tribunal – The applicants’ cases had been examined on the merits at first instance and on appeal. They had therefore been able to claim the protection of at least two national courts. The fact that, once their cases had been judged at final instance, it had been impossible for them to have examined certain complaints concerning the actions of the final national courts did not represent an obstacle to application of the new admissibility criterion. To assert otherwise would prevent the Court from dismissing any complaint, however insignificant, concerning a violation imputable to the final national instance, which would be contrary to the aim pursued by the admissibility criterion; the latter was intended to enable the Court to rule more rapidly on cases which did not merit examination on the merits. The Court considered that the applicants’ cases had been duly examined by the Czech courts. In this respect, it noted that the concept of a duly examined case was not to be construed as strictly as the requirement of procedural fairness (Article 6).
Conclusion: inadmissible (no significant disadvantage).
* Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 61811/00, 21 June 2005, Information Note no. 76.
** Resolution ResDH(2006)71, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 December 2006.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy