CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 18 September 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 11216/22 Jaroslav BROŽ against the Czech Republic lodged on 18 February 2022 communicated on 28 August 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the revocation of the applicant’s appointment as an insolvency administrator (“ insolvenčí správce ”) in a set of insolvency proceedings. The revocation was ordered by an insolvency court for breach of duty (section 32 and 36 of the Insolvency Act (Law no. 182/2006)). The applicant, who holds a special licence to act as an insolvency administrator (“ zvláštní povolení vykonávat činnost insolvenčního správce ”), complains that his removal negatively affected his good reputation, depriving him of his credibility, one of the prerequisites for performing the office of insolvency administrator and excluding, therefore, the possibility of reapplying for the office of special insolvency administrator after the expiry of his licence. He further complains that his right to be heard was breached in the proceedings he instituted to challenge his removal before national courts because no oral hearing was held, although the Insolvency Act guarantees the right to defence. The applicant relies on Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the omission to hold an oral hearing in the proceedings relating to the decision to revoke the applicant’s appointment as insolvency administrator give rise to a violation of his right to a fair and public hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention   ?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the revocation of his appointment as insolvency administrator? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention ?