Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Drahorád and Drahorádová, Mourek, Hoření, Ješina, Glaser
against Czech Republic

(Drahorád and Drahorádová, application No. 10254/03, judgment of 20 March 2008, final on 20 June 2008;
Mourek, application No. 17999/03, judgment of 3 April 2008, final on 3 July 2008;
Hoření, application No. 31806/02, judgment of 6 March 2008, final on 29 September 2008;
Ješina , application No. 18806/02, judgment of 26 July 2007, final on 10 December 2007;
Glaser, application No. 55179/00, judgment of 14 February 2008, final on 14 May 2008)

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 they had become final;

 Recalling that the violationS of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the lack of access to the Constitutional Court due to its restrictive interpretation of the admissibility rules (violationS of Article 6, paragraph 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 judgments;

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 the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the 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

- 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 these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)68

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments
in the cases of Drahorád and Drahorádová, Mourek, Hoření, Ješina, Glaser
against Czech Republic

Introductory case summary

The cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court due to the dismissal of their constitutional appeals by the Constitutional Court as being out of time or for non-exhaustion of available remedies (violations of Article 6§1).
When dismissing such appeals as out of time in the cases of Drahorád and Drahorádová, Mourek and Hoření, the Constitutional Court considered that when the Supreme Court declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible, it was the decision given in appeal which had to be considered as the last remedy and that, consequently, the time-limit for lodging a constitutional appeal started to run as from the date of notification of the decision of the court of appeal. On the other hand, in the Ješina and Glaser cases, the applicants’ constitutional appeals were declared inadmissible in view of the fact that they had failed to exhaust statutory remedies by appealing on points of law.
The European Court, referring to its previous findings in the cases of Běleš and others(No. 47273/99, ECHR 2002-IX) and Zvolský and Zvolská(No. 46129/99, ECHR 2002-IX), found that the Czech Constitutional Court had interpreted a procedural rule in such a restrictive manner that the applicants had been deprived of their right of access to a court.

I.	Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a)  Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	
Drahorád and Drahorádová (10254/03)	-	-	1 200 EUR	1 200 EUR	
Paid on 06/08/2008	
Mourek (17999/03)	-	-	-	0	
Hoření (31806/02)	-	-	100 EUR	100 EUR	
Paid with interest on 12/03/2009	
Ješina (18806/02)	-	-	-	0	
Glaser (55179/00)	-	-	2 500 EUR	2 500 EUR	
Paid on 23/07/2008	

b) Individual measures

In all five cases, the European Court held that the finding of the violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.
In the cases of Drahorád and Drahorádová, Hoření and Ješinacases, the European Court found no causal link between the damage claimed by the applicants and the violation of Article 6, and concluded that it could not speculate further on what would have been the issue of the proceedings, should the Constitutional Court have accepted and examined the constitutional appeal lodged by the applicants.
In the Mourek case, the applicant submitted no request for pecuniary damage; his request for non-pecuniary damage related to the inadmissible complaint about the length of proceedings.
In the Glaser case, the European Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as there was no causal link between the violation of Article 6 found and the pecuniary damage claimed.

The Czech authorities underlined that these cases had been examined on the merits at least at first and second instance, that the same alleged violations of the Convention which the applicants intended to raise before the Constitutional Court had been declared inadmissible by the European Court, and that the applicants had made no claim in respect of individual measures.

Moreover, any suggestion of reopening the proceedings before the Czech Constitutional Court would seem to run up against the principle of legal certainty to which the other party to the civil proceedings is entitled. Finally, in the light of the Czech authorities’ arguments and those of the European Court concerning the claims of just satisfaction, it does not seem that the violation affected the outcome of the proceedings in question.
Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary.

II.	General measures

Following earlier similar cases (see Běleš and others group,Final Resolution CM/ResDH (2007)115, adopted on 31/10/2007; Zvolský and Zvolská, Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)30, adopted on 20/04/2007; and Vodárenská akciová společnost, A.S., Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)27, adopted on 27/03/2008),the Czech authorities adopted a number of measures to prevent new violations:
(a) The plenary of the Constitutional Court changed its practice in 2003 (communication published in the Official JournalNo. 32/2003 of 03/02/2003) by allowing constitutional appeals against decisions of lower jurisdictions to be lodged following the decision on an extraordinary appeal, such as an appeal on points of law (see §21 of the judgment of the European Court in the case of Vodárenská akciová společnost, A.S.).
(b) Subsequently, Parliament adopted Law No. 83/2004 (which entered into force on 01/04/2004) which amended Law No. 182/1993 on the Constitutional Court. According to the amended law (Article 75§1), the extraordinary appeal, admissibility of which depends only on the discretionary assessment of the competent authority, does not necessarily have to be exhausted before addressing the Constitutional Court. Moreover, the extraordinary appeal is declared inadmissible by the competent authority only on the basis of its discretionary assessment, the constitutional appeal may be lodged within 60 days counting from the notification of the decision relating to the admissibility of that extraordinary appeal (Article 72§4).
The violations in the present cases occurred before these modifications.
It was confirmed during the bilateral contacts that these issues are being given special attention.
The European Court’s judgments were translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice () they were also discussed at the meeting of the plenary of the Constitutional Court.

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 these cases, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that the Czech Republic have thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.