CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mai 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 19 May 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 9188/25 Marek HOUŽVIČKA against the Czech Republic lodged on 15 March 2025 communicated on 2 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a dismissal as belated of the applicant’s constitutional appeal lodged against a decision of an appellate court imposing on him a fine of EUR 400 for having insulted judges in his civil proceedings. The appellate court decision was served on the applicant on 27   August 2024. On 29 October 2024 the applicant filed a constitutional appeal against that decision. On 13 November 2024 that appeal was rejected as belated because the Constitutional Court considered that the 2-month time-limit for lodging it expired on 28 October 2024 (decision no. IV. US 2970/24, delivered to the applicant on 15 November 2024). In a letter responding to the applicant’s complaint concerning the rejection, the president of the Constitutional Court admitted that the time-limit had been wrongly calculated. 28 October 2024 was a public holiday which, according to the relevant law (Article 57 § 2 of the Civil Procedure Code), extended the deadline for submission. The applicant’s constitutional appeal thus was not belated. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court was not empowered to remedy the mistake and change its decision. Relying on Article 6 § 1, the applicant complains about having been denied access to the Constitutional Court on account of a manifest error imputable to that court.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have access to the Constitutional Court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the rejection of his constitutional appeal 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)?