Hadrabová v. the Czech Republic (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 100

August-September 2007

Hadrabová v. the Czech Republic (dec.) - 42165/02 and 466/03

Decision 25.9.2007 [Section V]

Article 35

Article 35-3-a

Abuse of the right of application

Applicants fail to provide crucial information to the Court but disclose contents of friendly-settlement negotiations before it: inadmissible

The applicants complained that the length of certain civil proceedings had been excessive and that they had had no effective remedies at their disposal in respect of those delays. The case was transmitted to the Government for observations in reply. In May 2006 the Government submitted complementary observations concerning the introduction of a new domestic remedy in cases relating to the length of proceedings. In a letter of June 2006 counsel informed the Court that the applicants did not wish to use the new remedy and insisted on pursuing their applications. In August 2007 the Government reported that in April 2007 the applicants had sought compensation by using the new domestic remedy and that in July 2007 the Ministry of Justice had awarded them certain amounts. The Government further noted that in their compensation request the applicants had expressly referred to the proposals prepared by the Registry with a view to securing a friendly settlement.

The Court joined the cases and noted that according to Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court applicants shall keep the Court informed of all circumstances relevant to their application. It further recalled that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts. Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information. In the circumstances of the present case, the applicants, represented by legal counsel both in the domestic proceedings and the proceedings in Strasbourg, had not furnished any plausible explanation for the failure to inform the Court about the fact that they had applied for compensation one month and two weeks before submitting their comments on the Government’s complementary observations on the functioning of the new domestic remedy. Having regard to the importance of the information at issue for the proper determination of the present cases, such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention.

Moreover, according to Article 38 § 2 of the Convention, friendly-settlement negotiations are confidential and that Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court further stipulates that no written or oral communication and no offer or concession made in the framework of the attempt to secure a friendly settlement may be referred to or relied on in contentious proceedings. The Court reiterated the importance of the principle that friendly settlement negotiations are confidential and that communications made by the parties within the context of such negotiations are not to be relied upon in contentious proceedings. On the basis of the documents submitted by the Government it was clear that in their application for compensation the applicants had explicitly referred to the Registry’s proposal prepared within the framework of friendly‑settlement negotiations. Such behaviour constituted a breach of the above mentioned rule of confidentiality which must also be considered as an abuse of the right of application. Inadmissible.

© 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