CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 November 2022   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 18037/19 and 33175/22 RYBÁŘSTVÍ TŘEBOŇ A.S. against the Czech Republic and RYBÁŘSTVÍ TŘEBOŇ HLD. A.S. against the Czech Republic lodged on 29 March 2019 and 27 June 2022 respectively communicated on 21 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the annulment of privatisations of immovable property (fishponds and lands) after about 26 and 25 years, respectively, without compensation. The properties had originally belonged to the Roman Catholic Church and were subsequently taken by the former communist regime. After the Velvet revolution in 1989, the State transferred the property, in the framework of the privatisation of a State-owned enterprise, to [the predecessor of] the applicant company in application no. 33175/22, which was created for these purposes on 1 May 1992, as Rybářství Třeboň, a.s. On 1   January 2007 the company was divided by way of secession and the seceded part merged with the applicant company in application no. 18037/19 as the successor company. On the same day, company Rybářství Třeboň a.s. became Rybářství Třeboň Hld. a.s. , the current name of the company in application no. 33175/22. The privatisation price, as well as any investments by the companies into their properties have not been specified. Upon the entry into force of the Church Restitution Act (Law no. 428/2012 on property settlement with churches and other religious communities) in January 2013, two parishes from which the properties had been taken claimed with success that the privatisation had been conducted contrary to the law then in force (i.e. “the Privatisation Act” – Law no. 92/1991 on the Transfer of the State’s Property to Other Persons). The final decisions in those proceedings were taken by the Constitutional Court on 2 October 2018 (II.   ÚS 1953/18 - case no. 18037/19) and on 30   November 2021 (I.   ÚS   3179/18 - case no. 33175/19) respectively. Thereafter, apparently, the property in case no. 18037/19 was transferred to the Catholic Church, whereas the property in case no. 33175/22 still remains in the ownership of the State. The applicant companies complain under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 (deprivation of property without compensation) and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (fair trial). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicant companies been deprived of their immovable property in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? 2.     Was the deprivation in the two present cases effected in pursuance of a legitimate aim by means reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realised? In particular did the deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant companies (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no.   22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)? In this connection, does the Czech legal system provide for a possibility of persons liable for restitution of property under Act   no.   428/2012, like the present applicant companies, to recover the price paid by the applicant company in case no. 33175/22 for the privatisation, and the financial means which had been invested by both the applicant companies in their respective properties? 3. Did the applicant companies have a fair hearing in the proceedings against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? More specifically, were the principles of legal certainty, contradictory proceedings and equality of arms respected in the course of the proceedings before the domestic courts, particularly when they were called to assess whether the applicant companies had acquired the property concerned in good faith?