CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 janvier 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .s827CB718 { width:157.45pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 20745/15 AUTO HÉGR, A.S. against the Czech Republic   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12   January 2023 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.   20745/15) 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 23 April 2015 by Auto   Hégr, a.s. (“the applicant company”), which was represented by Mr   P.   Ritter, a lawyer practising in Olomouc; the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the alleged failure of the Constitutional Court to consider the applicant company’s additional arguments in support of its constitutional complaint to the Czech Government (“the Government”), represented by their former Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the   application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the alleged failure of the Constitutional Court to consider arguments included in the applicant company’s additional submissions in support of its constitutional complaint. The applicant company invokes, in this respect, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 2.     On 29 September 2011 the applicant company was ordered by the Olomouc District Court ( okresní soud ) to pay 934,000 Czech korunas (CZK   –   38,081 euros (EUR) at that time) in a civil claim. 3 .     On 7 February 2013 the District Court ordered the applicant company to pay the amount of CZK 233,500 (EUR 9,119) plus interest and dismissed the remainder of the claim. 4 .     On 24 October 2013 the Ostrava Regional Court ( krajský soud ) upheld the District Court’s judgment in so far as it concerned the amount of CZK   233,500 plus interest. It amended the judgment by further ordering the   applicant company to pay the remaining amount of CZK 700,500 (EUR   27,137) plus interest. 5 .     On 3 December 2013 the applicant company, represented by a lawyer, which was required by law, lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing, inter alia , that the Regional Court’s decision had been incorrect. 6 .     On 29 January 2014 the Supreme Court ( Nejvyšší soud ) rejected the   appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant company, without deciding on the merits. The court stated that the appeal had not specified the grounds that the applicant company considered met the admissibility requirements provided for in Article 237 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It   also noted that the applicant company had not raised any of the grounds of appeal set out in Article   241a § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, having disputed the legal assessment of the case only on the basis of a version of the facts of the case different from that on which the Regional Court had based its decision. Moreover, the applicant company had ignored the fact that neither the   findings of fact forming the basis of the assessment of the case by the   Regional Court nor that court’s assessment of the evidence could be challenged in an appeal on points of law. The applicant company’s legal representative was served with that decision on 12 February 2014. 7 .     On 19 March 2014 the applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint, arguing that it had been denied justice as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court and requesting that the Constitutional Court quash it as unconstitutional. 8 .     On 10 April 2014, within the sixty-day statutory time-limit for lodging a constitutional complaint, the applicant company filed additional submissions. It argued that the lower courts had failed to deal with certain important issues raised by it, which was contrary to the constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial. It further requested that the Constitutional Court quash the decision of the Regional Court. 9 .     On 6 November 2014 the Constitutional Court ( Ústavní soud ), in decision no. III. ÚS 1068/14, dismissed the applicant company’s constitutional complaint. In the heading of its decision, the court stated that it had ruled on the constitutional complaint lodged against the decision of theSupreme Court. It did not address the applicant company’s additional submissions. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 10.     The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 of the   Convention that the Constitutional Court had failed to consider the arguments and proposal included in its additional submissions (see paragraph 8 above). 11 .     The Government maintained that the applicant company’s appeal on points of law had been rejected for obvious defects in the submission, which had not met the well-known statutory requirements. The applicant company, which had been legally represented, had not specified the grounds that it considered met the admissibility requirements, and had only disputed the   other courts’ findings of fact. It had thus not exhausted all the remedies afforded to it by law, and the Constitutional Court could not but limit its review to the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s decision. The Government added that the Constitutional Court’s finding had been consistent with its established case-law, and had been available and foreseeable to the applicant company. 12.     The applicant company disputed the Government’s arguments. 13 .     The Court reiterates that the “right to a court”, of which the right of access is one aspect, is not absolute. The Court has found that the rules on procedure and time-limits for any submission to a court are to ensure the   proper administration of justice and compliance, in particular, with the   principle of legal certainty which is one of the fundamental aspects of the   rule of law (see Bulena v. the Czech Republic , no. 57567/00, §§ 28-29, 20   April 2004). Moreover, the parties must expect that failure to comply with the procedural rules in respect of domestic remedies will be sanctioned by the   remedy being ruled inadmissible (see Époux Mercier v. France (dec.), no.   19583/02, 1 February 2007). 14.     While the reasoning of trial or appellate courts’ decisions is subject to certain requirements, the Court is substantially more benevolent when assessing the reasons for a Supreme Court’s dismissal of a remedy for its inadmissibility. Indeed, where a Supreme Court refuses to accept a case on the basis that the legal grounds for such a case are not made out, very limited reasoning may satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see   Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009). 15.     The Court first observes that the applicant company’s case was examined by two courts with full jurisdiction as to the facts and law (see   paragraphs 3-4 above). The Constitutional Court intervened in the case in the capacity of a judicial body assessing the issues on a constitutional level. Admittedly, in the heading of its decision, it indicated that it had ruled on the constitutional complaint lodged against the Supreme Court’s decision (see   paragraphs 7 and 9 above), without mentioning the Regional Court, to which the applicant company’s additional submissions had referred (see paragraph 8 above). However, the Court subscribes to the Government’s argument that the Constitutional Court was not competent to deal with the applicant company’s complaints regarding the course of action followed by the lower courts, its appeal on points of law having been rejected without a   decision on the merits (see paragraphs 6 and 11 above). 16.     For the sake of completeness, the Court would add that the Supreme Court briefly but clearly stated the reasons for which the applicant company’s appeal could not be admitted (see paragraph 6 above). It is true that the higher jurisdiction did not advise it of the defects of its appeal on points of law. However, the Court points out that legal representation in proceedings on appeals on points of law was compulsory (see paragraph 5 above); the applicant company’s lawyer should therefore have provided it with the appropriate legal expertise to lodge an appeal on points of law which complied with all relevant procedural requirements. 17.     It follows that, in the absence of any appearance of arbitrariness, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3(a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 2 February 2023.     Martina Keller   Mārtiņš Mits   Deputy Registrar   President