CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 juin 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 July 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 1600/25 Michal JÍRA against the Czech Republic lodged on 6 January 2025 communicated on 23 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal to consider the applicant’s objections against a payment order ( směnečný platební rozkaz ) issued in 2011, by which the courts obliged him to pay approximately EUR 8,700 on account of a bill of exchange, plus any related interests. In the domestic courts’ view, the applicant failed to raise his objections relating to the lack of a legal reason ( causa ) of the bill of exchange within the statutory three-day time-limit running from the delivery of the payment order, applicable at the material time. The applicant asserts that he put forth the objections in lay terms, as he was not able to find a lawyer within the three-day period. The applicant’s constitutional appeal, arguing the breach of equality of arms and relying on the Constitutional Court’s plenary judgment of 16   October 2012 (no. Pl. ÚS 16/12) which had quashed the three-day time-limit on that ground, was dismissed by the Constitutional Court as manifestly ill-founded by a decision no. I. US 1674/24, delivered to the applicant on 9   September 2024. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that the proceedings were unfair, because the Constitutional Court departed from its plenary judgment and because the domestic courts did not properly consider all objections and evidence put forth by him.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the applicant’s allegations that the three-day time-limit applicable for lodging objections against a bill of exchange payment order put him at a substantial disadvantage as opposed to the other party, and the Constitutional Court’s departure from its plenary judgment no. Pl. ÚS 16/12 finding that time-limit in breach of equality of arms, did the applicant have a   fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, 1 December 2020, and Platakou v. Greece , no. 38460/97, ECHR 2001-I)?