CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2023

.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 } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 13 February 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 17796/20 Miroslav PATOČKA against the Czech Republic lodged on 3 April 2020 communicated on 23 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the issue of access to court in connection with the discontinuation at appellate stage, following the applicant’s failure to pay a court fee, of court proceedings for damages brought by him against the State, in respect of the losses incurred because of his inability to charge an adequate rent for tenement flats in his ownership due to the rent-control scheme put in place. The court fee in question was imposed following a jurisprudential development regarding the legal classification in domestic law of claims for damages such as the applicant’s. The proceedings terminated by a decision of the Constitutional Court (I. ÚS 1254/18) dated 8   October 2019. The applicant alleges violations of Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Given the amount of court fees required from the applicant to appeal against the Prague 2 District Court’s judgment of 7 April 2015, was his right of “access to a court”, as secured by Article 6 § 1, respected (see Nalbant and   Others v. Turkey , no. 59914/16, 3 May 2022)? In particular, was the requirement to pay the appellate court fees foreseeable? Was there a reasonable degree of proportionality between the means used and the aim pursued?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possession, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see   R&   L,   s.r.o. and Others v. the Czech Republic , nos. 37926/05, 25784/09, 36002/09, 44410/09 and 65546/09, 3 July 2014) as a consequence of the discontinuation of the proceedings for damages at the appellate stage?