CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 22 mai 2025

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .s556D3942 { width:152.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sF0E7BF98 { width:106.04%; border-collapse:collapse } .s8D7350E7 { width:7.34%; 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 } .s3C33C8C7 { width:39.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE92D7983 { width:16.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD07F8C28 { width:20.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD2BC34B3 { width:16.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9DD2EBBA { width:7.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAB3D80D1 { width:39.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFC545250 { width:16.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8C46F363 { width:20.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE6CF84F6 { width:16.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 25387/21 Zuzana BRODILOVÁ and Others against the Czech Republic   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22   May   2025 as a Committee composed of:   Andreas Zünd , President ,   Mykola Gnatovskyy,   Vahe Grigoryan , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   25387/21) 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 May 2021 by four Czech and Slovak nationals (“the applicants”), whose relevant details are listed in the appended table and who were represented by Mr P. Uhl, a lawyer practising in Prague; the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention to the Czech Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr P. Konůpka, of the Ministry of Justice, and to declare the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns a police intervention in May 2015 as a result of which the applicants were de facto evicted from a building in Prague that they had been occupying under a cooperation agreement (Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention). 2 .     In 2012 the second applicant, together with some other people, signed a cooperation agreement with a company that owned a derelict manor in Prague (known as the Cibulka homestead). The signatories were entitled, in exchange for maintenance and repair works, to use specified premises, namely stables, a cellar, part of the barn and one of the rooms in the main building. Some other people listed in the annex to the agreement, including the three other applicants, were allowed to perform helper duties and be present on the site under specific conditions. The agreement authorised the signatories to organise public cultural events, with the owner’s prior permission. The agreement expressly stated that it was not intended to be a   tenancy agreement. 3 .     On 27 October 2014 the owner sent a written warning to the occupants, complaining about their disregard for the conditions of the agreement and the perpetual disorder at the site, calling on them to remedy the situation by 30   November 2014 on pain of terminating the agreement. The warning included a reminder that the cooperation agreement was not a tenancy agreement and did not confer any rights on its signatories other than those specifically stipulated. 4.     On 17 December 2014 the owner notified the signatories of the termination of the agreement and called on them to vacate the site within the three-month notice period. 5.     According to the applicants, they expressed their disagreement with the notice period and attempted to negotiate with the owner, refusing to leave until their eviction had been ordered by the court. 6.     Further to a criminal complaint lodged by the owner on 5 May 2015, the police concluded that the conduct of the people remaining on the site formed the elements of the offence of trespassing and decided to intervene in order to clear the site. Following the police operation of 6 May 2015, most of the occupants left voluntarily, but some were evicted by force, including the applicants. 7.     The applicants’ subsequent requests for supervision and review of the police actions by the prosecution authorities were dismissed. In the administrative proceedings by which the applicants sought protection against unlawful interference by the police, the Supreme Administrative Court held that it was for the prosecution authorities, not the administrative courts, to review the police’s conduct in the present case. Following a constitutional appeal by the applicants, the Constitutional Court stated in judgment no.   II.   US 3173/16 of 14 March 2017 that, on the basis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was incumbent on the prosecution authorities to review the actions of the police since they had been performed in a criminal matter. 8 .     Consequently, the applicants again turned to the Prague 5 District Prosecutor, arguing that the police should not have interfered in their civil dispute with the owner, that criminal means should be used as a last resort and that their right to inviolability of the home had been breached. Their request for a review was dismissed on the grounds that they had not had the right to occupy the building as tenants and their conduct had thus been regarded as unlawful, giving rise to a suspicion of a criminal offence and entitling the police to take action as a result. The applicants’ subsequent request for supervision was also dismissed. The Prague Municipal Prosecutor observed that the fact that no one had ultimately been convicted did not mean that the police actions had been unlawful. On the contrary, the criminal complaint had raised a sufficient suspicion that the building had been occupied unlawfully. 9.     The applicants lodged another constitutional appeal, in which they complained that the prosecution authorities had not complied with the Constitutional Court’s judgment no. II. US 3173/16 and had not offered them adequate protection, and that there had been a breach of their right to respect for their home. That appeal was dismissed (judgment no. III. US 2410/18 of 20 October 2020, notified on 4 November 2020). Despite noting some shortcomings in the District Prosecutor’s review, the Constitutional Court found that the applicants’ arguments had been duly dealt with. It further held that the police could have considered prima facie that the applicants’ behaviour amounted to a criminal offence and that the eviction had been necessary in order to put an end to it. The police intervention had thus been lawful and proportionate and the police had not acted in excess of their powers. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT Complaints under Article 8 of the Convention 10.     Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complained of a breach of their right to inviolability of the home. They asserted that an eviction could only be carried out by an enforcement officer and on the basis of a court order and that the police should not have interfered in their civil dispute with the owner of the building that they had been occupying. 11 .     While conceding that they did not have enough information about the actual manner in which the building concerned had been used by the applicants or the extent of such use, the Government submitted that it was incumbent on the applicants to demonstrate the existence of a “sufficient and continuous link” with the building, which they had failed to do. According to publicly available information, the building had been used at the material time as a venue for alternative cultural events. The Government stressed that the cooperation agreement expressly stipulated that it was not a tenancy agreement and allowed its signatories to use only specified premises that were not designed to be lived in (see paragraph 2 above). Moreover, there was no running water, electricity or sewerage system and the permanent residence of the applicants was registered elsewhere. The Government also argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of this complaint. 12.     In reply, the applicants asserted that they had considered the cooperation agreement to be an innominate contract which had allowed for residential use of the building. Claiming that they had lived in the property for a long period of time, they submitted several photographs taken two days after the police intervention which showed a messy interior, makeshift beds with sheets and covers, and some everyday items. 13.     The Court notes that the parties disagreed as to whether Article 8 of the Convention applied in the present case. In that connection, it reiterates that the concept of “home” within the meaning of Article 8 is not limited to premises which are lawfully occupied or which have been lawfully established. It is an autonomous concept which does not depend on classification under domestic law. Whether or not particular premises constitute a “home” which attracts the protection of Article 8 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see, for example, Winterstein and Others   v.   France , no. 27013/07, § 141, 17 October 2013;   Hasanali Aliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan , no.   42858/11, § 31, 9 June 2022; and Jansons v.   Latvia , no.   1434/14, § 52, 8 September 2022). 14.     The Court observes that the applicants’ use of the building may be characterised as “squatting”. As a social phenomenon, squatting can be residential in nature, for example where poor and homeless people unlawfully occupy derelict property for residence purposes, thereby creating sufficiently close and continuous links with it. However, squatting can also represent a   social movement aimed at preserving buildings – often on the basis of a   maintenance contract – or a protest action where squats are used as self ‑ managed social or community centres. 15.     On the basis of the information in the case file, the Court considers that the applicants’ situation falls within the second category. First, the cooperation agreement, which was signed only by the second applicant, expressly stated that it was not a tenancy agreement, as reasserted by the owner in his warning of October 2014 (see paragraph 3 in fine above). It merely authorised the second applicant to use specified premises and the other applicants to be present on the site in order to perform helper duties (see paragraph 2 above). Second, the applicants did not dispute that the building had no electricity or running water and that it was not suitable as long-term living accommodation. Third, the applicants do not appear to be poor or indigent; they were all registered at different addresses and did not claim after their eviction by the police that they had nowhere to go. Lastly, the Court considers that the photographs submitted by the applicants do not in any way establish that anyone, let alone the applicants specifically, had been living in the manor on a continuous basis. 16.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that the applicants have failed to demonstrate that their links to the building in question were sufficient and continuous enough in order for it to be regarded as their “home” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. 17.     It follows that this complaint is incompatible   ratione materiae   with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3   (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court does not find it necessary to examine the second objection raised by the Government (see paragraph 11 in fine above). Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 18.     The applicants further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the prosecution had dealt with their case in a purely formal and superficial manner, had not complied with the first Constitutional Court judgment no.   II.   US 3173/16, and that such a review and the ultimate decision of the Constitutional Court could not replace an examination by an independent court. 19.     The Court notes that the domestic authorities’ reports and decisions, which the applicants are now challenging before it, did not concern a   “criminal charge” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. To determine whether that provision applies under its civil limb, the Court must establish whether the matter brought by the applicants to the domestic authorities’ attention constituted the determination of a civil right, within the meaning of that Article. 20.     The Court reiterates that for   Article 6   § 1 in its civil limb to be applicable, there must be a “dispute” over a right which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law, irrespective of whether that right is protected under the Convention (see   Grzęda   v.   Poland   [GC], no.   43572/18 , § 257, 15 March 2022, and Smalhout v.   the   Netherlands (dec.), no. 4597/23, § 16, 11 June 2024). 21.     The Court notes that the absence of a right covered by Article 8 does not necessarily presuppose the absence of a right within the meaning of   Article 6   § 1. However, given that no domestic authority has endorsed the applicants’ view that they had been authorised to occupy the manor as de   facto tenants (see, for example, paragraph 8 above), the applicants cannot claim to have had a right which was recognised under domestic law, even on arguable grounds, to stay on the site. It follows that   Article 6   § 1 of the Convention does not apply to the facts of the present case. This part of the application is therefore incompatible   ratione   materiae   with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a)   and   must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. 22.     Moreover, even assuming that Article 6 of the Convention is applicable, the Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the applicants’ complaints do not disclose any appearance of a   violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The Court notes in that regard that the applicants were given an opportunity to raise their factual and legal arguments before the domestic authorities and that those arguments were properly examined, in so far as the matters complained of were within the competence of those authorities. It should be observed in this connection that the applicants did nothing to attempt to enforce, by means of civil proceedings, respect for their right to what they now argue was their “home”. 23.     Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3   (a) and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 19 June 2025.     Martina Keller   Andreas Zünd   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix List of applicants: No. Applicant’s name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Zuzana BRODILOVÁ 1981 Czech Prague 2. Marek ĎURIŠ 1986 Slovak Bratislava 3. Michaela SCHIFFLEROVÁ 1984 Czech Prague 4. Juraj ŠPILA 1988 Slovak Čadca