CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 juin 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 17 June 2015   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 45758/14 Josef BERÁNEK against the Czech Republic lodged on 16 June 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Josef Beránek, is a Czech national, who was born in   1965 and lives in Smědčice. He is represented before the Court by Ms   V.   Burianová, a lawyer practising in Plzeň. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 9 November 2006 the applicant applied for a construction permit. The application was dismissed by two levels of administrative bodies. The applicant’s action against these decisions was dismissed by the Plzeň Regional Court. On 31 July 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed his cassation complaint. The decision was served on 28 August 2013. On 29 October 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against the above decisions, which he supplemented on 28 November 2013. On 31 March 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional appeal as lodged out of time. It held that since the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision was served on 28 August 2013, the last day of the two-month time-limit was 28 October 2013; however the applicant lodged his constitutional appeal on 29 October 2013. On 8 April 2014 the applicant sent a letter to the Constitutional Court, requesting it to quash its decision. He argued that because 28 October 2013 was a national holiday, the last day to lodge the constitutional appeal was 29   October 2013. On 11 April 2014 the Secretary General of the Constitutional Court replied that the judge rapporteur had undoubtedly overlooked that the time-limit had been indeed complied with, however the Constitutional Court did not have the power to quash its own decision. B.     Relevant domestic law 1.     Act no. 99/1963, Code of Civil Procedure Under Article 57 § 2, if the last day of a time-limit falls on a national holiday, the next working day following the national holiday is the last day of that time-limit. 2.     Act no. 182/1993 on the Constitutional Court Under Article 63, unless stated otherwise, the Code of Civil Procedure shall be applied in default in proceedings before the Constitutional Court. Under Article 72 § 3, a constitutional appeal may be lodged within two months since the decision on the last available remedy was served. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his constitutional appeal was rejected for being too late, although it was lodged in time. The Constitutional Court thus did not examine his constitutional appeal on the merits.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant denied the right of access to the Constitutional Court in violation of Article 6 of the Convention?