CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .sC2ED5256 { width:137.77pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 14025/23 and 14077/23 Šárka WEGNEROVÁ and Others against the Czech Republic and Radmila MALÁ against the Czech Republic   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 19   September 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Mykola Gnatovskyy , President ,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the applications 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”) 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 The applicants, Ms Šárka Wegnerová (hereinafter “the first applicant”), Mr   Radovan Dostál (hereinafter “the second applicant”), Ms Romana Höll (hereinafter “the third applicant”) and Ms Radmila Malá (hereinafter “the fourth applicant”), were represented before the Court by Mr Jan Bouček, lawyer practising in Prague. The applications concern an issue of “legal certainty” in regard to the amount of compensation awarded to the applicants for excessive length of civil proceedings, especially in relation to the total amount of compensation awarded to a third person, Ms Dostálová, by both domestic authorities and the Court ( Dostálová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 35557/21, 24 February 2022). Background The above-mentioned case, Dostálová v. the Czech Republic (no.   35557/21), has been at the very centre of the applicants’ arguments both before the domestic authorities and before this Court. For this reason, it appears appropriate to summarise briefly the main facts relevant for the present applications. The second applicant is married to Ms Dostálová, applicant in the above ‑ mentioned case, who was party to the same civil proceedings before the domestic courts as the applicants (see below for further details). She was represented both before the domestic courts and the Court by the same legal representative as the applicants, Mr Bouček. On 3 July 2021 she lodged an application with the Court, claiming that she had received insufficient compensation for the excessive length of those civil proceedings. On 30 September 2021 notice of that application was given to the Government. Through her legal representative, Ms Dostálová was sent (i)   instructions, in Czech, on the procedure that she was asked to follow, and (ii)   friendly settlement declarations as, in the light of the jurisprudence and practice of the Court, it appeared that the case could be settled if the parties accepted the terms of friendly settlements. The relevant part of these instructions read as follows: “(...)     There is a requirement of strict confidentiality in respect of friendly settlement negotiations under Rule 62 § 2, and any proposals or submissions in this respect should be set out in a separate document, the content of which must not be referred to in any submissions made in the context of the main proceedings.” As Ms Dostálová and the Government subsequently reached a friendly settlement, the Court struck her application from its list of cases on 24   February 2022. Civil proceedings As indicated above, on 9 June 2009 the applicants initiated, together with a large number of other plaintiffs including Ms Dostálová, civil proceedings concerning their property rights. The proceedings lasted (i) in case of the first, second and fourth applicants from 9 June 2009 to 21 June 2018, that is approximately nine years, before two levels of courts, and (ii) in the case of the third applicant, who had also lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, from 9 June 2009 to 21 September 2019, that is approximately ten years and three months, before three levels of courts. Compensatory proceedings The applicants subsequently lodged compensatory actions by virtue of the State Liability Act, seeking compensation for the excessive length of the above civil proceedings. The domestic authorities and courts awarded to the first and second applicants 76,800 Czech korunas (CZK) each (approx. EUR 3,243), to the third applicant CZK   88,000 (approx. EUR 3,715) and to the fourth applicant CZK   42,000 (approx. EUR 1,773). Some of the domestic courts expressed their discontent with the fact that the applicants, through their representative Mr Bouček, had submitted documents and information obtained in the course of friendly settlement negotiations in the case of Ms Dostálová, apparently with an aim to put pressure on the courts to award a higher amount of compensation to the applicants. In respect of the fourth applicant, the Supreme Court noted that she had provided it with “ so-called materials of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the applicant Marcela Dostálová (app. no.   35557/21) which concern the efforts of that court to settle the case out of court ” and which “ ECtHR had expressly marked ... as confidential (and they were not being treated as such) ”. The Supreme Court also noted that these documents and this information formed the very core of the fourth applicant’s arguments. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeals as manifestly ill-founded by its decisions no. IV. ÚS 1894/22 (in respect of the first, second and third applicants) and no. IV. ÚS 1744/22 (in respect of the fourth applicant). The Constitutional Court also noted that the applicants again extensively referred to the friendly settlement negotiations in the case of Ms Dostálová. For example, it transpires from its relevant decision that the first, second and third applicants attached to their constitutional appeals, inter alia , “ application to the ECtHR lodged by ... M. Dostálová ” and “ a letter from the ECtHR concerning the consideration of the admissibility of the application, or the notification of the Government of the Czech Republic on the possibility of a friendly settlement of the case. The applicants also enclose ... a communication between the applicants’ representative (who was also Ms   Dostálová’s representative) and the Government Agent ”. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the violation of their “legal certainty” since the amount of compensation awarded to them by the domestic courts for the excessive length of the civil proceedings was lower than the combined amount of compensation and just satisfaction awarded to Ms Dostálová by the domestic authorities and the Court. According to Article 39 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court, friendly-settlement negotiations are confidential. This rule is absolute and does not allow for an individual assessment of how much detail was disclosed (see Glavaš v. Croatia (dec.), no. 33137/14, 13 September 2016). Noting the importance of this principle, the Court reiterates that it cannot be ruled out that a breach of the rule of confidentiality might, in certain circumstances, justify the conclusion that an application is inadmissible on the grounds of an abuse of the right of application (see, for example, Glavaš , cited above; Benjocki and Others v. Serbia (dec.), nos. 5958/07, 6561/07, 8093/07 and 9162/07, 15 December 2009; Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia , no. 798/05, § 68, 15 September 2009; Hadrabová v. the Czech Republic   (dec.), no. 42165/02, 25 September 2007). Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicants, through their legal representative, made extensive use of documents and information pertaining to the friendly settlement negotiations in the Dostálová case in the proceedings before the domestic courts. They did not limit themselves to a mere reference to the fact that Ms Dostálová had concluded a friendly settlement with the Government or to the content of the Court’s relevant strike-out decision without revealing details of the friendly settlement negotiations, such as the amount involved or the initiatives undertaken (see, a contrario, Lesnina Veletrgovina d.o.o. v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 37619/04, 2 March 2010). On the contrary, the applicants relied on the details of those friendly settlement negotiations, including the exact amounts involved, and apparently built their whole domestic case around them. As it transpires from the decisions of the domestic courts, mainly the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, the applicants disclosed a number of confidential documents to them and, in consequence, to other parties to the domestic proceedings. It is also noteworthy that the applicants used the same procedural strategy before the Court. Indeed, in their applications they referred extensively to the details of friendly settlement negotiations in the Dostálová case. At the same time, they did not advance any, let alone convincing, reasons for failing to respect the requirement of strict confidentiality of the friendly settlement negotiations pursuant to Article 39 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court. In conclusion, given that the applicants, through their legal representative, intentionally made public the terms of the friendly settlement negotiations and proposal in the Dostálová case, the Court considers that their conduct amounted to a breach of the rule of confidentiality, which must also be considered to constitute an abuse of the right of individual application. The Court notes that, in any event, the applications would have to be declared manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. The applicants did not formulate any clear, specific and substantiated complaints regarding the length of the civil proceedings or proportionality of the compensation awarded to them; instead, they merely claimed a violation of their “legal certainty”, which is clearly misconceived. It follows that their applications are inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention as an abuse of the right of application and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 thereof. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications. Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 10 October 2024.     Martina Keller   Mykola Gnatovskyy   Deputy Registrar   President Appendix List of cases No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 14025/23 Wegnerová and Others v. the Czech Republic 25/03/2023 Šárka WEGNEROVÁ 1972 Prague Czech Radovan DOSTÁL 1973 Prague Czech Romana HÖLL 1951 Prague Czech Jan BOUČEK 2. 14077/23 Malá v. the Czech Republic 25/03/2023 Radmila MALÁ 1931 Prague Czech Jan BOUČEK