CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC829F605 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sEDC1C282 { width:117.66%; border-collapse:collapse } .sCEF7FC32 { width:6.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sC60C080E { width:37.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s283897E7 { width:18.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7441BD44 { width:18.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDFDFB747 { width:19.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC1C4314A { width:6.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s12287A9C { width:37.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBE8A9321 { width:18.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7033CD84 { width:18.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8A73A3A5 { width:19.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 20 March 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 25387/21 Zuzana BRODILOVÁ and Others against the Czech Republic lodged on 1 May 2021 communicated on 3 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a police intervention in May 2015 as a result of which the applicants were de facto evicted from a building in Prague (known as “Cibulka”) that they had been occupying since 2012 under a “contract of cooperation”, providing essentially for maintenance of the building. The police acted upon a criminal complaint filed by the owner company on the grounds that the applicants had failed to vacate the building following a notice of termination of the above contract. Following the applicants’ constitutional appeal about a denial of protection against the police intervention, the Constitutional Court held in its judgment II. US 3173/16 that it was incumbent on the prosecution authorities (and not on administrative courts) to review the actions of the police, which had been carried out, pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure, on account of a suspicion of a criminal offence of unlawful occupation of the building. Subsequently, underlining that the “contract of cooperation” explicitly stated that it was not to be considered a rental agreement, two levels of prosecution authorities concluded that the applicants’ continued occupation of the building had been contra legem and given rise to a suspicion that a criminal offence might have been committed, which had entitled the police to act. The applicants’ constitutional appeal relying on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded (no. III. US 2410/18). The Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ complaint that the prosecution had not complied with the Constitutional Court’s previous judgment and had not offered them adequate protection, considering that the prosecution authorities had duly responded to their arguments. It endorsed their conclusion that the police could have prima facie considered that the applicants’ behaviour amounted to a criminal offence; although the police intervention had led to a de facto eviction of the applicants, such an eviction could not be understood within the meaning of the civil law but as an act aimed at stopping the suspected criminal activity; it had thus been lawful, proportionate and not ultra vires . Before the Court, the applicants rely, inter alia , on Article 8 of the Convention and complain about a breach of their right to inviolability of home. They assert that any eviction can only be realised by an enforcement officer and on the basis of a court order, that the police should not have interfered in their civil dispute with the owner and that criminal means should be used as ultima ratio . QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it purse a legitimate aim, and was it necessary in a democratic society, in terms of Article   8 §   2 (see, notably, Jansons v. Latvia , no. 1434/14, 8 September 2022)?       APPENDIX List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Zuzana BRODILOVÁ 1981 Czech Prague 2. Marek ĎURIŠ 1986 Slovak Bratislava 3. Michaela SCHIFFLEROVÁ 1984 Czech Prague 4. Juraj ŠPILA 1988 Slovak Čadca