Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)122
Two cases against the Czech Republic
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 June 2013
at the 1174th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
(Družstevní Záložna Pria and others, Application No. 72034/01, judgment of 31/07/2008, final on 26/01/2009 and judgment of 21/01/2010, final on 28/06/2010
Rodinná záložna, spořitelní a úvěrní družstvo and others, Application No. 74152/01, judgment of 9/12/2010, final on 9/03/2011, and judgment 19/01/2012, final 19/04/2012)
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 final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established;
Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action reports provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)329);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
in cases No. 72034/01 – Družstevní záložna PRIA against the Czech Republic
and No. 74152/01 – Rodinná záložna, spořitelní a úvěrní družstvo, against the Czech Republic
Action Report submitted in its consolidated version
by the Czech Government on 14 March 2013
In the case of Družstevní záložna PRIA, the Court, in its judgment on the merits of 31 July 2008 which became final on 26 January 2009, found procedural violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in connection with the placement of the applicant credit union in receivership, while it reserved the question of just satisfaction for later decision. On 21 January 2010 the Court pronounced a judgment on just satisfaction whereby it made an award for costs and expenses and rejected the remainder of the claims. The second judgment became final on 28 June 2010.
In the case of Rodinná záložna, spořitelní a úvěrní družstvo, the Court delivered its judgment on the merits on 9 December 2010 which became final on 9 March 2011, and its judgment on just satisfaction on
19 January 2012 which became final on 19 April 2012. The outcome of the case was similar to that in Družstevní záložna PRIA.
The present report is intended to inform the Committee of Ministers of individual and general measures of execution of the judgments.
I. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES
The government understands that the above judgments do not require them to introduce any other individual measures beside payment to the applicant credit unions of just satisfaction awarded by the Court as reimbursement of costs and expenses. This is supplemented by the fact that the Court did not find any damage which would have emerged in causal connection with the established violations.
Still, the government should add that Družstevní záložna PRIA conducted proceedings before the Prague 1 District Court on damages allegedly amounting to CZK 1,220,000,000. The applicant decided to withdraw the lawsuit due to its inability to submit evidence and lack of financial resources. Consequently, the district court discontinued the proceedings by its decision of 26 October 2010, which, in this point, became final. The applicant has therefore voluntarily decided not to pursue one of the domestic avenues available to it in order to claim possible damages.
Rodinná záložna, spořitelní a úvěrní družstvo, has been free to put forward its claims at the domestic level, in particular in the proceedings on damages, and thus to follow the way taken in the past by the applicant in the other case mentioned in this report. Still, the government is not aware that the applicant would have initiated such steps.
II. GENERAL MEASURES
A) AS TO THE VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
As of 1 January 2003, following the repulsion of Part V of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Constitutional Court and the enactment of a new Code of Administrative Court Procedure, the administrative courts have been entitled to review administrative acts in full jurisdiction and therefore no further general measure appears necessary. The government is of the opinion that after the said changes concerning administrative justice, there is no major risk of repetition of the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention similar to that identified by the Court in its judgments on the merits.
B) AS TO THE VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
(i) Identification of problematic issues
The government recalls that problems identified by the Court in its judgments on the merits under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were fundamentally as follows:
After the imposition of receivership, the applicant credit unions were prevented from access to their essential business and accounting documents, which were in sole disposition of the receiver, and thus prevented from effectively challenging information concerning their economic situation or imposition of receivership respectively.
After the amendment of the Credit Unions Act by Act No. 280/2004, the applicant credit unions completely lost the opportunity to challenge the decision on placement in receiver-ship as its supervisory board ceased to be entitled to lodge the particular procedural motion.
(ii) Evaluation of passed changes of law
The government is convinced that, since the time of this assessment, these identified problems have been remedied due to significant legislative amendments and case law evolution.
First of all, Act No. 57/2006, effective as from 1 April 2006, amended the Credit Unions Act and inter alia removed sections concerning receivership. As a result, a placement of a credit union in receivership is no longer possible under any circumstances. It follows that at present, there is objectively no risk of a new violation of rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 caused by a situation when a credit union would be placed in receivership. Therefore, the government believes that this crucial change of legislation alone has been sufficient and no further systemic measures to prevent future violations of similar kind of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are required.
(iii) Related legal regulation
The government would further note that the possibility of placement into receivership still exist for subjects active on the financial market other than credit unions, such as banks, investment companies (investiční společnosti), investment funds (investiční fondy), insurance companies (pojišťovny), etc. The nature of these subjects is fundamentally different from credit unions in many aspects and so the government is of the opinion that the assessment of their position falls outside the scope of execution of the judgment of 31 July 2008. Still, the government would point to the features and recent developments of legal regulation concerning these entities in order to illustrate the complex approach of the national authorities to the issues identified by the Court.
In relation to the question of procedural entitlement to lodge a remedy, Act No. 126/2002, effective as from 1 May 2002, amended the Banks Act so that it explicitly inserted a rule that statutory bodies are no longer restricted from lodging appeals against imposition of receivership, which is an exception from the standard rule that statutory bodies’ authority is suspended following placement of a subject in receivership. Similar provisions providing for continuity of the right to lodge appeals against receivership are included in legislation regulating other subjects on the financial market, e.g. Article 109 § 5 of Act No. 189/2004 [Collective Investment Act], Article 139 § 5 letter a) of Act No. 256/2004 [Enterprise on Capital Market Act], or Article 30 § 5 letter a) of Act No. 363/1999 [Insurance Act], later Article 99 § 4 letter a) of Act no. 277/2009 [new Insurance Act]. This legislative regulation also reflects the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 12 October 2004 No. 5 A 131/2001-69, which reinterpreted the former law concerning credit unions in the sense that a supervisory board is entitled to lodge an appeal during receivership.
Concerning the question of right to access to documentation, the government notes that at present this right can be inferred from general principles of Administrative Code [Act No. 500/2004]. Moreover, in case a certain administrative decision is based on such a documentation, the documentation then becomes part of the particular administrative proceedings file and subsequently, the access to the documents in the file is explicitly provided for by Article 17 in connection with Article 38 § 1 and 2 of the Administrative Code [for any person who is party to the proceedings or has legal interest on the proceedings].
(iv) Publication of the judgments of the Court
Finally, the government notes that the Court’s judgments have been translated and disseminated in accordance with the established practice, in particular to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Czech National Bank and the Ministry of Finance.
III. CONCLUSION
The Government of the Czech Republic concludes that all the necessary measures to execute the judgments have been taken.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy