Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)14[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Zich and others against the Czech Republic
(Application No. 48548/99, judgments of 18 July 2006, final on 18 October 2006, and of 21 December 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 it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the deprivation, pursuant to the law on restitution, of the property acquired by the applicants under the communist regime (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 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 judgment;
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 judgment (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its 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
- of 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 this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)14
Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the case of
Zich and others against the Czech Republic
Introductory case summary
The case concerns the restoration of a building, acquired in good faith by the applicants, to its previous owners. The eight applicants are members of the housing co-operative which formerly owned a block of flats in Prague. In the 1960s ownership of the building was transferred to the state by its original owners because they were in difficult circumstances. In 1981 the building was acquired by the predecessor of the
co-operative through an agreement with the state. The co-operative carried out a large-scale reconstruction and modernisation project.
In 1991 the successors in title to the original owners brought an action to recover ownership of the building from the co-operative. On 23/03/1994 the Prague 3 District Court ordered the co-operative to reach an agreement for the restoration of the building to the plaintiffs; it held that it had been established that the plaintiffs had been in financial difficulties at the time of the transfer, that they were accordingly entitled to apply for restitution under the Extrajudicial Rehabilitation Act and that the co‑operative was required to return the property. After the judgment was upheld on appeal, the applicants brought the case-unsuccessfully – before the Supreme and the Constitutional Courts. Then the Ministry of Finance reached an agreement with the co-operative under the terms of which, in August 1999, the latter was reimbursed the price it had paid to purchase the property in 1981 (53 470 euro). In July 2002 the District Court dismissed a claim by the co-operative against the state for the difference in value between the purchase price and the sum paid, partly by its members and partly by the bank, for the reconstruction and modernisation of the building.
The European Court considered that the applicants had title to a possession and that the return of the property had entailed an interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of it. That interference, which had been based on the Extrajudicial Rehabilitation Act, had been in public interest. The European Court noted nonetheless that the co-operative had acquired the property in good faith, without knowing that it had been given to the state by its former owners under pressure, and for the price fixed in accordance with the law. It further observed that under the Extrajudicial Rehabilitation Act the co-operative had been entitled to reimbursement of the price it had paid to purchase the property in 1981. In those conditions, the European Court considered that the applicants had had to bear an “individual and excessive burden” and that the Czech authorities, in applying the Extrajudicial Rehabilitation Act, had not taken into consideration the conditions in which the return of the property had been carried out, particularly the terms of the compensation intended to lighten the burden the applicants had to bear (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
Judgment of 18/07/2006
-
6 000 euros
1 000 euros
7 000 euros
Paid on 28/12/2006
Judgment of 21/12/2006
9 595 828 Czech korunas
-
-
9 595 828 Czech korunas
Paid on 19/12/2006 and 27/12/2006
b) Individual measures
The pecuniary damage sustained was the subject of the friendly settlement concluded before the European Court. Moreover, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered. Consequently, no other individual measure seems required in this case.
II.General measures
The case presents similarities to those of Pincová and Pinc (No. 36548/97) and Zvolský and Zvolská (No. 46129/99) (closed by Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)30 adopted on 20/04/2007).
The judgment of the European Court was translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (). Moreover, the judgment on the merits was the subject of the government resolution No. 1258 of 01/11/2006 by which the friendly settlement on the just satisfaction was approved; in that way, it was brought to ministries’ and courts’ attention.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, 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 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy