CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 16 June 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 22850/24 L.T. against the Czech Republic lodged on 5 August 2024 communicated on 28 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a denial of access to a court to an applicant, born in 2007 and minor at the material time, to lodge an action concerning discrimination in education. Represented by his mother, he lodged an action complaining about the closure of schools in autumn 2020 in response to the spreading of the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus in the context of the COVID-19 state of emergency. However, the court stayed the proceedings until the applicant provided a decision of a guardianship court confirming his right to lodge the action, as required by law. Subsequently, two levels of guardianship courts denied the application for a decision confirming the applicant’s right to lodge the action. They considered his wish to pursue the action, expressed during an oral hearing, as well as the position of the appointed public guardian (a child protection authority) who recommended that the court allow the action. They also took note that the applicant would only pay legal fees if his action was successful and that the mother had undertaken to cover the possible adverse legal costs and a court fee. Nevertheless, they considered that filing the action would not be in his best interest because the mother’s financial situation was unstable owing to her unemployment, and he thus still risked incurring a debt. The applicant’s constitutional appeal complaining about the denial of access to a court and challenging the courts’ assessment of his best interests was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded (decision no. III. ÚS 3185/23, delivered to the applicant on 5 April 2024). Before the Court, the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that he was denied access to a court to determine his civil claim. He further relies on Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, arguing that access was denied to him on the basis of his socio-economic status. As a consequence, he did not have an effective remedy under Article 13 in relation to his original complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Lastly, the applicant also claims that his rights under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 in conjunction with Article 14 were breached due to the closure of schools during the COVID-19 state of emergency. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts’ refusal to grant him an approval to lodge an action against the alleged interference with the right to education and discrimination in education?   2.     Has the applicant been discriminated against on the grounds of his socioeconomic status in the enjoyment of his right of access to a court, in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Have there been any other violations of the Convention as alleged by the applicant?