Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)122[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Bulena, Kadlec and others, Zedník, Zemanová against Czech Republic
(Bulena, application No. 57567/00, judgment of 20 April 2004, final on 20 July 2004;
Kadlec and others, application No. 49478/99, judgment of 25 May 2004,
final on 25 August 2004;
Zedník, application No. 74328/01, judgment of 28 June 2005,
final on 28 September 2005;
Zemanová, application No. 6019/03, judgment of 13 December 2005,
final on 13 March 2006)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns the violation of the applicant's right of access to the Constitutional Court due to its excessively formal interpretation of the admissibility rules (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of
- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- general measures preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)122
Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of
Bulena, Kadlec and others, Zedník, Zemanová against Czech Republic
Introductory case summary
These cases concern the infringement of the applicants' right of access to the Constitutional Court in various civil proceedings (bankruptcy proceedings in Bulena, recovery of confiscated flats in Kadlec and others, partial withdrawal of a disability pension in Zedník and request for alimony in Zemanová). The European Court found that the Constitutional Court's excessively formal interpretation of the admissibility rules deprived the applicants of the right of access to this court (violation of Article 6§1).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Name and application number
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
Bulena (57567/00)
-
-
1 300 EUR
1 300 EUR
Paid on 24/09/2004
Kadlec and others (49478/99)
-
-
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
Paid on 23/11/2004
Zedník (74328/01)
-
-
88 EUR
88 EUR
Paid on 29/11/2005
Zemanová (6019/03)
-
-
1 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
Paid on 17/05/2006
b) Individual measures
The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non‑pecuniary damage sustained. Considering the nature of the violation, the damages suffered by the applicants and the fact that their cases had been considered on the merits at both first instance and appeal, no specific individual measures appear to be necessary. In addition, the applicants have submitted no claims for such measures.
II.General measures
These cases present certain similarities to those of Běleš (judgment of 12/11/2002, closed by Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)115), and Zvolský and Zvolská (judgment of 12/11/2002, closed by Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)30), following which the authorities adopted legislative and jurisprudential measures to clarify the admissibility requirements for constitutional appeals in the Czech Republic (in particular the rules regarding time-limits for these appeals and exhaustion of other remedies).
However, these measures did not resolve the particular problem raised by these four judgments, that is the excessive formalism of the Constitutional Court in declaring constitutional appeals inadmissible for failure to observe certain procedural requirements. Consequently, the Constitutional Court was invited to discuss this issue at one of its plenary sessions. The outcome of this discussion was published in a press release of the President of the Constitutional Court on 23/07/2007. It emerges from this document that, as regards the wording of the petitum of the constitutional appeals and the identification of the decisions challenged in these appeals (see cases of Bulena and Kadlec and others), judges must avoid an excessively formalistic approach, without necessarily compensating for the procedural activity of the applicants.
Concerning the calculation of the time-limit set for constitutional appeals (see cases of Zedník and Zemanová), constitutional judges agreed that particular attention was necessary so that the appeals are not declared inadmissible unjustifiably. It was underlined that the procedure to be followed depended on the concrete nature of the appeal in question.
Moreover, the judgments of the European Court have been translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice () and sent out to the authorities concerned, including in particular the Constitutional Court.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the Czech Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 2009 at the 1072nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy