European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF CRITES AND RABINOVITZ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

(Application no. 54651/20)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

20 June 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Crites and Rabinovitz v. the Czech Republic,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Mārtiņš Mits, President,
 María Elósegui,
 Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 54651/20) against the Czech Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on 1 December 2020 by two American nationals, Ms Alice Crites and Mr Michael Rabinovitz ("the applicants"), who were born in 1963 and 1960 respectively, live in Bethesda and were represented by Mr M. Kojan, a lawyer practising in Prague;

the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the right of access to the Constitutional Court to the Czech Government ("the Government"), represented by their Agent, Mr P. Konůpka, of the Ministry of Justice, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties' observations;

Having deliberated in private on 30 May 2024,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case concerns the applicants' lack of access to the Constitutional Court which erred by not having reviewed the decisions of the lower courts that the applicants challenged before it (Article 6 of the Convention).

2.  In 2014 the applicants' predecessor brought a pecuniary claim of approximately 1,550 euros (EUR) before the domestic courts; a much higher amount was sought from the same defendant by other claimants. Later, the applicants were allowed to replace their predecessor on the claimant side, and their claim was granted in a very small part and dismissed for the remainder.

3.  In April 2020 the applicants filed a constitutional appeal, complaining of a breach of their right to a fair trial and to respect for property.

4.  Although the amount of the applicants' claim, considered separately from the other co-claimants, was lower than the financial limit allowing for an appeal on points of law (that is to say, approximately EUR 1,960 pursuant to Article 238 § 1 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure), the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants' constitutional appeal for non-exhaustion of all domestic remedies, stating without any further explanation that they should have filed an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (decision no. I. ÚS 1193/20 of 26 May 2020, served on the applicants' lawyer on 3 June 2020).

THE COURT'S ASSESSMENT

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

5.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

6.  The general principles concerning the right of access to a court have been summarised in Zubac v. Croatia ([GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-78, 5 April 2018) and Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania ([GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 192-195, 25 June 2019, with further references).

7.  The Court observes that the rules on the procedure and time-limits for appeals are designed to ensure the proper administration of justice and, in particular, legal certainty (see, among other authorities, Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic, no. 46129/99, § 46, ECHR 2002-IX). An erroneous application of those rules by a domestic court is likely to infringe an applicant's right to effective judicial protection (see, for example, Zemanová v. the Czech Republic, no. 6019/03, 13 December 2005, and Beránek v. the Czech Republic [CTE], no. 45758/14, 5 October 2017).

8.  In the present case, it has not been disputed by the parties that the amount of the applicants' claim brought before the domestic courts did not reach the financial limit set by Article 238 § 1 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the purpose of which is to prevent appellants from submitting to the Supreme Court cases of no significant importance. Pursuant to that provision, an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicants in the present case would have been inadmissible ex lege, which would have resulted in a rejection of their subsequent constitutional appeal on the ground of belatedness.

9.  Thus, by considering, without any further explanation, that the applicants should have lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court before turning to the Constitutional Court, that court made an error and failed to examine the applicants' constitutional appeal on the merits. This has not been contested by the Government.

10.  In these circumstances, the Court finds that the erroneous application by the Constitutional Court of the relevant procedural rules deprived the applicants of their right of access to a court.

11.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  Each of the applicants claimed EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,300 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court.

13.  The Government noted that a finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, underlining that if the Court finds a violation of the applicants' right under the Convention, the applicants will be able to request the reopening of their case before the Constitutional Court under Articles 119 et seq. of the Constitutional Court Act. They further considered that the applicants, who were represented before the Court by the same lawyer, could only pretend to a common award in respect of the costs of their legal representation, which should not exceed EUR 1,300.

14.  Having regard to the nature of the violation of Article 6 § 1 found in the present case, the Court considers - as it has in other similar cases (see Zemanová, cited above, § 30, and Beránek, cited above, § 28) - that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in the circumstances.

15.  Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants a global sum of EUR 1,300 for the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants;
4. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, EUR 1,300 (one thousand three hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 June 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Martina Keller Mārtiņš Mits
 Deputy Registrar President