CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 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 Application no. 15440/22 SUVERÉNNÍ ŘÁD MALTÉZSKÝCH RYTÍŘŮ – ČESKÉ   VELKOPŘEVORSTVÍ against the Czech Republic lodged on 23 March 2022 communicated on 17 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the impossibility for the applicant, a catholic parish, to have restored lands which had been confiscated by the former communist regime. The domestic proceedings between the applicant and the current owner of the property ended by the Constitutional Court’s decision dated on 16 November 2021 (IV. ÚS. 2662/21). The applicant, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, challenges the alleged inconsistency of the decision ‑ making of the domestic courts regarding the applicant’s entitlement to restitution under the Church Restitution Act (Law no. 428/2012 on property settlement with churches and other religious communities), having regard to the decisions adopted by the Constitutional Court in similar restitution matter. Moreover, the applicant’s constitutional complaint was allegedly not examined by a formation of the Constitutional Court that would comply with the Constitutional Court Act: under section 23 of the Act, if a chamber of three judges, when deciding on a   case, reaches a legal opinion that differs from the legal opinion previously expressed in a judgment ( nález ) of the Constitutional Court, it is obliged to submit the conflicting issue to the Plenary of the Constitutional Court. In the present case, however, the chamber, which dealt with the applicant’s constitutional complaint, allegedly departed from the Constitutional Court’s previous case-law concerning confiscations under President Beneš Decree No. 12 and its consequences (e.g. the judgment of the Constitutional Court   no. I. ÚS 1975/20) instead of referring the matter to the Plenary for consideration. Hence, the three-judge chamber decided on a question which should have allegedly been dealt with by the Plenary of the Constitutional Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? 2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, on account of its inability to recover its property rights to immovable property which had been seized by the former communist regime? 3.     If so, was that interference lawful and carried out in pursuance of a legitimate aim by means reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realised? 4.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the proceedings against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty respected in the course of the proceedings before the domestic courts, particularly when they were called to assess whether the applicant was entitled to restitution of the property under the Church Restitution Act (Law no. 428/2012 on property settlement with churches and other religious communities), having in mind the Constitutional Court’s conclusions regarding similar cases (see II. ÚS 1920/20 of 25   January 2021; I. ÚS 1975/20 of 23 March 2021; and also III. ÚS 361/21 of 30   November 2021 and I. ÚS 3918/19 of 21 December 2021)? 5.     Was the applicant’s right to have its constitutional complaint decided by a court established by law, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, respected when the chamber of the Constitutional Court, to which the applicant’s constitutional complaint had been assigned, allegedly departed from the legal opinion expressed in the Constitutional Court’s previous relevant case-law and examined the case, instead of submitting it to the Plenary of the Constitutional Court to examine the conflicting issue? Was such a procedure in conformity with the Constitutional Court Act?