CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 juillet 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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s25198F8F { width:149.77pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 11723/23 Jiří KRAJČÍK against the Czech Republic   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10   July   2025 as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Gilberto Felici , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   11723/23) 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 17 March 2023 by a Czech national, Mr Jiří Krajčík, who was born in 1962 and lives in Jeseník (“the applicant”), and who was represented by Ms Z. Candigliota, a lawyer practising in Brno; the decision to give priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court); the decision to indicate an interim measure to the Government (Rule   39 of the Rules of Court); Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the eviction of the applicant, a severely disabled person, from a care home where he continued to live after the expiry of his social services contract in September 2017. 2.     The applicant suffers from multiple sclerosis, and as a result is quadriplegic and requires special daily care. 3 .     In December 2015 he was admitted to a home for elderly persons (“the   care home”) in Jeseník in the Olomouc region on the basis of a one-year social services contract under section 49 of the Social Services Act (Law   no.   108/2006), even though he did not meet the minimum age requirement of 65 years, because it was taken into account that as a person with multiple sclerosis, he had been living in wholly unsatisfactory conditions. The applicant’s stay was repeatedly extended until September 2017, after which time he continued to live in the care home without a contract. He was housed in a single room, which he needed because it allowed him to control electronic devices using his voice and gave him the privacy needed for personal hygiene. 4 .     In August 2019, following a request made by the care home, the Jeseník District Court ordered the applicant to vacate his room in the care home within two months. The court found that the applicant did not meet the age requirement for placement in the care home, and that he needed substantially more care than could be provided there because of his serious medical condition. It observed that the care home had repeatedly offered to assist the applicant in finding suitable alternative accommodation, taking into account both his age and the level of care he required, even within the Olomouc region. However, the applicant had not applied for admission to another social services institution, having insisted that he should continue to receive social services at the care home, during which time he would stay in a single room, which no other social services provider could guarantee. Relying on a report of the Olomouc Regional Office, the court found that there were institutions in the Olomouc region to which he could apply for admission, and that those institutions provided adequate social services, taking into account the applicant’s age, required level of care and state of health. Furthermore, the court did not find that the applicant had deeper family ties to persons living in Jeseník and its immediate surroundings. 5.     In September 2020 the Ostrava Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment. 6.     In June 2021 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant. 7 .     On 2 November 2021, following a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant, the Constitutional Court (III. ÚS 1765/21) quashed the Supreme Court’s decision and the Regional Court’s judgment, finding that they violated the applicant’s right to judicial protection. It referred the case back to the Regional Court, obliging it to properly evaluate the evidence submitted by the applicant with regard to his realistic possibility of securing adequate alternative accommodation with social services within a reasonable period of time. 8 .     On 21 April 2022 the Regional Court obliged the applicant to vacate his room in the care home within four months. It stated, in particular: “The [applicant] was admitted to the [care home] even though he did not meet the conditions for admission ... [in a situation] where [his] social situation was extremely unfavourable and the fulfilment of his basic needs in life was threatened. Therefore, the contract for the provision of social services was concluded for a fixed period, during which time the [applicant] should have looked for another suitable facility ... [His] attitude to [finding] an alternative social services provider to replace [his] facility was hesitant and rather reluctant ... The Ombudsman’s investigation report confirms the earlier conclusions of the general courts that the [applicant] ... refused the assistance and help repeatedly offered to him by employees of the Jeseník Municipal Office in searching for another social services provider following the expiry of his contract with [the care home] (in November 2017 and August and November 2018).” The court found, on the basis of extensive written evidence, that the applicant had a realistic possibility of finding adequate social services within a reasonable time. In this connection, it stated that he had been accepted by three suitable care homes and had been included on their waiting lists, and that one of them, the K. care home, would have a place available within one to six months. Moreover, the applicant’s daughter had contacted other institutions, such as a home for elderly persons in Radkova Lhota and a similar institution in Ostrava. 9.     On 22 November 2022 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It held that he had initially refused to cooperate with the authorities and had not started to apply for new accommodation until years after the Constitutional Court’s judgment, during which time he had continued to live in the care home without a contract. Moreover, as no new facts or evidence could be considered in the proceedings relating to the appeal on points of law, the court could not take into account the fact that the K. care home had refused to enter into a contract with the applicant for the provision of social care services because it was not able to satisfy his individual requirements. The court added that the applicant would still receive care even if he were evicted, because a local authority was obliged to provide necessary care for people whose health was at risk, under section 92(a) of the Social Care Services Act (Law no. 108/2006). 10.     On 7 February 2023 the Constitutional Court (I. ÚS 8/23) dismissed as manifestly unfounded a second constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant in which he alleged violations of Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the Convention. It reiterated that social services had to exist and be available to people, providing them with appropriate support for their condition and situation and enabling them to lead a dignified and as independent a life as possible, with maximum personal autonomy and social inclusion, and without social exclusion [1] . It found that it was in this spirit that the ordinary courts had applied those conclusions to the applicant’s case, having taken extensive evidence, given detailed reasons for their decisions and had regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the existence of appropriate services available to the applicant. The social care institutions in question could meet most of the applicant’s needs, even if they were located further away from his current facility. Moreover, the applicant, who had been occupying the room in the care home since 2017 without legal grounds, had been given sufficient time to vacate the care home in Jeseník and move to another suitable and available facility. 11.     On 18 November 2022 the applicant was informed that eviction proceedings had been initiated against him. 12.     On 14 February 2023 an enforcement officer informed the applicant that his eviction would take place on 23 March 2023. 13.     On 22 March 2023, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the Court indicated to the Government that the applicant should not be evicted from the care home until 22 April 2023. On 21 April 2023 the Court decided not to extend the interim measure. 14 .     On 8 September 2023 the applicant informed the Court that in June   2023 he had moved to a home for elderly persons in Radkova Lhota, under a social services contract concluded for an indefinite period. He stated, however, that some of his needs were not being met despite promises made by the new care home (for example, he did not have an accessible toilet), and that his relatives and friends could not visit him regularly because he was 200   km away from Jeseník. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 15.     The applicant complained, in his application form, that his eviction from the care home in Jeseník had been unjustified and discriminatory and that the domestic courts had ordered his eviction without taking into account that the room in the care home had been his home. They had also failed to consider in detail the availability of suitable facilities offering a single room, which he needed for his daily life because of his disability, and the level of care he could receive in such facilities. The applicant also challenged the grounds on which the courts had based their decisions. He relied on Articles 3, 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention. In a letter of 8 September 2023 the applicant maintained that he had moved to the care home in Radkova Lhota because he had been assured that he would be provided with the facilities necessary for his daily life, such as an accessible toilet. However, that was not the case. Moreover, visits from his family and friends had decreased considerably owing to the distance involved and the complexity of public transport. According to him, his forced transfer to the care home in Radkova Lhota had violated his rights guaranteed by the Convention. 16.     The Court notes at the outset that the issues that the applicant raised in his letter of 8 September 2023 are not an elaboration or elucidation of his original complaints to the Court concerning his eviction from the care home in Jeseník and the circumstances in which it was ordered. Rather, they constitute new complaints which have not been submitted at national level. The Court therefore considers that it cannot take up this matter now within the context of the present case. 17.     In respect of the complaints which the applicant raised in his application form, the Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine his complaints from the viewpoint of Article 8 of the Convention only. 18.     Viewing the facts of the case in the light of its established case-law (see, among other authorities, Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria , no.   46577/15, § 49, 21 April 2016, with further references), the Court finds that the applicant’s eviction from the care home, where he had been living since 2015, amounted to an interference with his right to respect for his home. 19.     The Court notes that the applicant’s eviction was based on the applicable legislation as interpreted by the domestic courts. To the extent that the care home tried to recover possession of the room on the grounds that the applicant had been occupying it since October 2017 without a valid contract, the Court considers that the interference in question pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others – persons who fulfilled the conditions for being admitted to the care home. The central question in the present case is therefore whether the interference was proportionate to the aim pursued and thus “necessary in a democratic society”, which involves procedural questions as well as those of substance (see Giuliano Germano v. Italy , no.   10794/12, §§ 96-98, 22 June 2023, with further references). 20.     In the present case, the Court observes that the domestic courts ordered the applicant to vacate the disputed premises on the grounds that after the expiry of his social services contract he had been occupying the premises without legal grounds. In their reasoning, the courts found that the applicant had been admitted to the care home on the basis of a one-year social services contract which had subsequently been extended several times until the end of September 2017, and that his admission had been justified by his precarious social situation at the time. The courts also established that not only did the applicant not meet the minimum age requirement of 65 years for care home residents, but the level of care he received was significantly more time-consuming and expensive than that received by other care home residents. The care home and the Jeseník Municipal Office had repeatedly offered the applicant assistance in finding another social services provider, including those in the Olomouc region. However, the applicant had refused the assistance and had insisted on remaining in the care home, where he occupied a single room, which could not be guaranteed by another social services provider. Although the applicant had made enquiries about possible accommodation with other social services providers, he had never submitted a written application for admission to other social services institutions in the Olomouc region. 21.     After the case had been returned to it by the Constitutional Court, the Regional Court thoroughly assessed the question of whether the applicant had a realistic chance of obtaining adequate social services within a reasonable period of time, as required by the Constitutional Court. Having assessed an extensive amount of written evidence, it noted that the applicant had been placed on the waiting lists of three social welfare establishments. Furthermore, the Regional Court, when obliging the applicant to vacate his room in the care home within four months, assured itself that he had a realistic possibility of being relocated to an institution which could provide him with adequate social services corresponding to his state of health. 22.     The Constitutional Court found that the lower courts had assessed an extensive amount of evidence, had given detailed reasons for their decisions and had considered all circumstances relevant to those decisions. 23.     The Court reiterates that a wide margin is usually allowed to the State under the Convention in issues of general policy, including social, economic, and healthcare policies (see, for instance, McDonald v. the United Kingdom , no. 4241/12, § 54, 20 May 2014, with further references). However, if a restriction on fundamental rights applies to a particularly vulnerable group in society that has suffered considerable discrimination in the past, such as persons with disabilities, or elderly dependent people, then the State’s margin of appreciation is substantially narrower and it must have very weighty reasons for the restrictions in question (see Jivan v. Romania , no. 62250/19, § 42, 8 February 2022, with further references). 24.     At the same time, in the light of the principle of subsidiarity, it is not for the Court to substitute its views for those of the national authorities and to interpret and apply the domestic law. The domestic courts, however, to whom that task falls, must interpret the domestic law in a manner which is compliant with the States’ obligations under the Convention (see Jivan , cited above, § 47). 25.     The Court considers that it is clear from the reasoning of the national courts in the present case that they took all the relevant circumstances into consideration, namely the circumstances of the applicant’s admission to the Jeseník care home, the extent and cost of his daily care, his family ties and the real possibility of finding other appropriate social services institutions which would provide him with adequate care, notwithstanding his persisting negative attitude in that regard. The courts carefully weighed those circumstances against each other, giving relevant and sufficient reasons for their decisions. The national courts thus did not confine themselves to finding that the applicant’s occupation had no legal basis, but also analysed the proportionality of the measure to be applied against him. 26.     In view of the considerations above, the Court is satisfied that the interference complained of was necessary in a democratic society. The Court finds that it answered a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. It also finds that the reasons adduced by the national courts to justify it were relevant and sufficient. 27.     Accordingly, it follows that the applicant’s complaints are 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 11 September 2025.     Martina Keller   María Elósegui   Deputy Registrar   President [1] Judgment of the Constitutional Court no. I. ÚS 2637/17 of 23 January 2018