CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 octobre 2016

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 4 October 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 51896/12 Kristina COLLOREDO MANSFELDOVÁ against the Czech Republic lodged on 10 August 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Kristina Colloredo Mansfeldová, is a Czech national, who was born in 1940 and lives in Opočno. She is represented before the Court by Mr T. Nahodil, a lawyer practising in Prague. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant had a restitution claim concerning movable property located in Opočno Castle. The castle itself belonged to another person, of whom the applicant is not an heir. The movable property was initially confiscated from a predecessor of the applicant during the German occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1942 on the orders of the German Secret State Police, which considered him to be an enemy of the German Reich. After the end of the Second World War, the property was once again confiscated, in 1945, by the Czechoslovak State under the Beneš decrees as he was considered to be of German nationality. That expropriation was quashed on appeal by the National Council in Prague ( zemský národní výbor ) on 21 January 1947 after it had been established that the applicant’s predecessor was of Czechoslovak nationality and had been loyal to the Czechoslovak State. What happened to the property afterwards is disputed and was discussed in the domestic decisions. Due to the large number of items in question, the first-instance court decided the case by way of three partial judgments. The courts upheld the first part of the applicant’s claim but rejected the second and the third. These two proceedings are the subject of the present application. 1.     The second proceedings before domestic courts On 27 October 2006 the District Court ( okresní soud ) ordered the National Heritage Institute ( Národní památkový ústav ) to return movable property located in Opočno Castle. It found that the applicant’s predecessor had been the owner of the property on the critical date, that is 25   February 1948, and that the statutory conditions for its restitution had been fulfilled. On 18 October 2007 the Regional Court ( krajský soud ) quashed the judgment and dismissed the action. It held that the property in question had been taken away from the applicant’s predecessor before 25 February 1948 and that therefore the legislation on restitution did not apply. During a hearing on 8 October 2007, the court did not adduce any evidence, merely listening to the comments of the parties on the decision of the first-instance court and then adjourning to deliver a judgment. The Regional Court based its decision mainly on two pieces of evidence. Firstly, there was a letter of 24 June 1947 from the national administrator of Opočno Castle to his superiors, informing them about a visit by the applicant’s predecessor to the castle. The second piece of evidence was a decision by the Ministry of Agriculture of 30 April 1947 by which Opočno Castle and its movable property had been declared State cultural property (hereinafter “the 1947 decision”). The 1947 decision was not adduced as evidence during the hearing and the parties could not comment on it. The Regional Court noted in the reasoning for its decision that it was aware of the document’s existence through the exercise of its functions. On 11 February 2009 the Supreme Court ( Nejvyšší soud ) dismissed an appeal on points of law ( dovolání ) lodged by the applicant. It noted that the appellate court had reached its conclusion, inter alia , on the basis of the 1947 decision On 3 February 2012 the Constitutional Court ( Ústavní soud ) dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal ( ústavní stížnost ) as manifestly ill-founded. The court addressed complaints only in relation to the decision of the Supreme Court of 11 February 2009, the rest were considered as submitted late. 2.     The third proceedings before domestic courts On 22 April 2009 the District Court dismissed the rest of the applicant’s restitution claim. In its reasoning it referred to the judgment of the Regional Court of 18 October 2007 and that of the Supreme Court of 11   February 2009. On 27 January 2011 the Regional Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court. The court adduced as evidence a letter by the Ministry of Agriculture of 27 May 1957 referring to the 1947 decision. The 1947 decision was not produced for the parties despite their requests. On 28 November 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law. On 17 May 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional appeal submitted by the applicant, claiming a violation of her right to a fair trial as manifestly ill-founded. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     The judicial and extra-judicial rehabilitation legislation The relevant domestic laws and practice concerning the restitution of property are described in Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, §§ 19-44, ECHR 2002-VII. 2.     The Code of Civil Procedure (Act no. 99/1963, as amended) The relevant legal provisions are described in Krčmář and Others v.   the   Czech Republic , no. 35376/97, §§ 27-28, 3 March 2000. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the 1947 decision of the Ministry of Agriculture on which the domestic courts based their judgments was not adduced as evidence and she could not comment on it and that neither the Supreme Court nor the Constitutional Court took appropriate measures to remedy that defect. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of adversarial trial respected (see, for example, Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic , no. 61811/00, § 59, ECHR 2005 ‑ V) as regards the use as evidence of the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture of 30   April 1947?