FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27877/21
Tomáš LÖRINC against Slovakia
and 16 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 April 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Alena Poláčková,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications listed in the appended table against Slovakia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. Following the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Government and the Public Health Authority (PHA) of Slovakia adopted a series of measures to avert and mitigate its consequences.
2. The applications concern numerous resolutions and decrees adopted by the Government and the PHA, respectively, between 11 March 2020 and 15 May 2021. The impugned measures introduced various forms of lockdown, limitations on the right to freedom of assembly and association, as well as an obligation to wear a protective mask. They also provided for various exceptions to the restrictions, but these were conditional on having undergone a Covid-19 test with a negative result. The measures evolved over time, applying initially to the whole State territory and later being adapted to the pandemic situation in different regions.
3. Having a single legal representative, Mr P. Weiss, a lawyer practising in Bratislava, the applicants rely on almost all of the Convention provisions and complain in identical generic terms of the obligation to wear a protective mask and the condition of undergoing a Covid-19 test with a negative result to qualify for an exemption from the various restrictions.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
4. Having regard to the identical subject matter of the applications and complaints raised by the applicants, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
5. The Court reiterates that, in order to be able to lodge a petition by virtue of Article 34, a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals must be able to claim to be the victim of a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention. In order to claim to be a victim of a violation, a person must be directly affected by the impugned measure: the Convention does not envisage the bringing of an actio popularis for the interpretation of the rights it contains or permit individuals to complain about a provision of national law simply because they consider, without having been directly affected by it, that it may contravene the Convention (see Tănase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 104, ECHR 2010).
6. However, it is open to a person to contend that a law violates his rights, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if he is required either to modify his conduct or risks being prosecuted or if he is a member of a class of people who risk being directly affected by the legislation (see Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, §§ 33 and 34, ECHR 2008; Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, § 44, Series A no. 246-A; and Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28).
7. The Court reiterates in this context that, in order for applicants to be able to claim victim status, they must produce reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting them personally will occur; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient in this respect (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 101, ECHR 2014, and Le Mailloux c. France (dec.) [Committee], no. 18108/20, § 11, 5 November 2020).
8. The Court observes in this regard that, although the applications contain a detailed enumeration of the various measures adopted by the Government and the PHA, they do not provide any information about the applicants’ personal situation beyond their identity and, in some cases, their occupation. The applicants provide no information to show how exactly the impugned measures affected, or would be likely to affect, them directly, or target them because of their possible individual characteristics (see Zambrano v. France (dec.), no. 41994/21, § 43, 21 September 2021).
9. It is further noted that, although the initial response to the pandemic involved uniform measures across the State territory, these were later adjusted and regularly updated in an attempt to reflect the actual sanitary situation. The measures introduced by the Government and the PHA over the impugned period were thus complex and differentiated in terms of stringency and territorial and other application.
10. However, the complete absence of any individual particulars makes it impossible to conduct an individual assessment of the applicants’ situation, including the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies (compare, Zambrano, cited above, §§ 24-26). It thus appears that the applicants wish to complain about the impugned measures in a general manner, contemplating that, as a result of their adoption, their rights were automatically violated (see, mutatis mutandis, Le Mailloux, cited above, § 13).
11. Indeed, the abstract nature of the applications is demonstrated also by the fact that they are all formulated in identical terms, using the copy-paste method (see Zambrano, cited above, § 44).
12. In that respect, noting that the applicants are represented by a lawyer, the Court reiterates that lawyers must understand that, having due regard to the Court’s duty to examine allegations of human rights violations, they must show a high level of professional prudence and meaningful cooperation with the Court by sparing it from the introduction of unmeritorious complaints and, once proceedings have been instituted, then meticulously abide by all the relevant rules of the procedure and urge their clients to do the same (see Bekauri v. Georgia (preliminary objection), no. 14102/02, § 24, 10 April 2012). Otherwise, the wilful or negligent misuse of the Court’s resources may undermine the credibility of lawyers’ work in the eyes of the Court and even, if it occurs systematically, may result in particular individual lawyers being banned from representing applicants under Rule 36 § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court (see Stevančević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 67618/09, § 29, 10 January 2017).
13. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and taking into account the above considerations, the applications constitute an actio popularis and the applicants cannot be regarded as victims for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention.
14. Accordingly, the complaints are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 5 May 2022.
Liv Tigerstedt Péter Paczolay
Deputy Registrar President
Appendix
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
1.
27877/21
Lörinc v. Slovakia
21/05/2021
Tomáš LÖRINC
1977
Bratislava
2.
38259/21
Gulášová and Guláš v. Slovakia
23/07/2021
Ľubica GULÁŠOVÁ
1976
Bánov
Stanislav GULÁŠ
1973
Bánov
3.
38807/21
Cigášová v. Slovakia
28/07/2021
Viktória CIGÁŠOVÁ
1990
Valaliky
4.
38841/21
Azor v. Slovakia
28/07/2021
Ondrej AZOR
1975
Chorvátsky Grob
5.
39010/21
Tušková v. Slovakia
28/07/2021
Zlatica TUŠKOVÁ
1973
Horné Saliby
6.
39013/21
Sakmár and Sakmárová v. Slovakia
28/07/2021
Michal SAKMÁR
1985
Valaliky
Martina SAKMÁROVÁ
1985
Valaliky
7.
39230/21
Miková v. Slovakia
28/07/2021
Michaela MIKOVÁ
1986
Bratislava
8.
44296/21
Bekéni v. Slovakia
30/08/2021
Ladislav BEKÉNI
1972
Bratislava
9.
52293/21
Hrehorčáková v. Slovakia
20/10/2021
Andrea HREHORČÁKOVÁ
1978
Spišský Hrhov
10.
52298/21
Cina v. Slovakia
20/10/2021
Peter CINA
1977
Košice
11.
52302/21
Orolím v. Slovakia
19/10/2021
Miroslav OROLÍM
1977
Veličná
12.
52303/21
Tuška v. Slovakia
19/10/2021
Radovan TUŠKA
2002
Horné Saliby
13.
52308/21
Juhásová Valentová v. Slovakia
20/10/2021
Linda JUHÁSOVÁ VALENTOVÁ
1980
Zvolen
14.
52311/21
Ulmanová and Ulman v. Slovakia
19/10/2021
Andrea ULMANOVÁ
1980
Nová Dubnica
Robert ULMAN
1976
Nová Dubnica
15.
52313/21
Mikušová v. Slovakia
19/10/2021
Alena MIKUŠOVÁ
1967
Trnava
16.
52323/21
Pelegrinová v. Slovakia
19/10/2021
Eliška PELEGRINOVÁ
1988
Sládkovičovo
17.
56126/21
Klusová v. Slovakia
10/11/2021
Lucia KLUSOVÁ
1985
Šala