Published on 16 March 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 26153/25
SYNOT GASTRO SLOVAKIA S.R.O., ODŠTĚPNÝ ZÁVOD
against the Czech Republic
lodged on 14 August 2025
communicated on 24 February 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the temporary closure, lasting from 12 April 2021 to 30 May 2021, of the applicant company’s spa hotel as a result of the measures adopted by the Ministry of Health under the so-called Pandemic Act to combat the spread of the coronavirus-2019 disease (“COVID-19”) (“pandemic measures”). Those measures were subsequently quashed or declared unlawful by administrative courts.
The applicant company sought compensation under the State Liability Act for the damage caused by the closure of its hotel. Asserting that the real damage amounted to approximately 14,5 million Czech crowns (CZK, approx. 600,000 euros (EUR)), it only requested the Ministry of Health to pay it a symbolic amount of CZK 39,000 CZK (approx. EUR 1,600) corresponding to a damage caused by a one-day closure.
The courts concluded that no compensation could be granted under the law for the damage caused by the pandemic measures, unless the person affected had been a party to the proceedings in which the measure had been issued. The Constitutional Court found that their approach had been unduly formalistic and affected the applicant company’s rights but considered that the applicant company in any event did not meet the conditions for compensation. It then dismissed the constitutional appeal as concerning a de minimis amount by a decision no. IV. ÚS 1411/23 of 28 May 2025.
The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that its right to a peaceful enjoyment of property was violated on account of its obligation to close its business on the basis of the pandemic measures which were later declared unlawful, and the State’s failure to compensate for that interference.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to the application of the pandemic measures that disabled, between 12 April 2021 and 30 May 2021, the operation of its business? In particular:
- Did the interference fulfil the requirement of lawfulness? Among other aspects, did the applicant company have a reasonable opportunity of presenting its case for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures (see Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, § 95, 11 December 2018, and Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, §§ 133-134, ECHR 2005‑XII (extracts), with further references)?
- Was the interference proportionate, in view of the domestic authorities’ refusal to award the applicant company any compensation (see, mutatis mutandis, Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 91, ECHR 2010, and Pialopoulos and Others v. Greece, no. 37095/97, §§ 59-60, 15 February 2001)?