CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2024

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 26 August 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 26867/21 Luděk ŠPERLICH against the Czech Republic and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 10 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applicants were parties to different civil proceedings before the domestic courts. They lodged appeals on points of law which the Supreme Court dismissed after an examination on the merits. Referring to its plenary opinion no. Pl. ÚS-st. 45/16 of 28 November 2017, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ respective constitutional appeals (nos. I. ÚS 2892/20, I. ÚS 83/23 and III. ÚS 644/23), holding that they had to be rejected (i)   in respect to the decisions of the Supreme Court as manifestly ill-founded since the latter had duly dismissed the applicants’ appeals on points of law on procedural grounds, and (ii)   in respect to the decisions of the lower courts for non-exhaustion of available remedies since the applicants had failed to duly challenge them before the Supreme Court. Relying on Article 6 § 1, the applicants mainly complain about the lack of access to the Constitutional Court. In their view the Constitutional Court erred by not having reviewed the decisions of the lower courts, given that they had duly exhausted the appeals on points of law.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have access to the Constitutional Court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the partial rejection on formal grounds of their respective constitutional appeals result from an omission imputable to the Constitutional Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Adamíček v. the Czech Republic , no. 35836/05, 12 October 2010, and Crites and Rabinovitz v. the Czech Republic [Committee], no. 54651/20, 20 June 2024)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 26867/21 Šperlich v. the Czech Republic 19/05/2021 Luděk ŠPERLICH 1966 Šumperk Czech Karel BOČEK 2. 22336/23 Hanus v. the Czech Republic 25/05/2023 Bernard HANUS 1963 Prague Czech Ondřej HÁLA 3. 30632/23 Crites and Rabinovitz v. the Czech Republic 28/07/2023 Alice CRITES 1963 Bethesda American Czech Michael RABINOVITZ 1960 Bethesda American Michal KOJAN