CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 octobre 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 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 20 October 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 46401/22 ŘÍMSKOKATOLICKÁ FARNOST - PRELATURA ČESKÝ KRUMLOV against the Czech Republic lodged on 21 September 2022 communicated on 1 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns restitution proceedings, under the Church Property Settlement Act (Law no. 428/2012), concerning land that had been confiscated from the applicant, a Roman Catholic parish, by the former communist regime. Although the Land Office had surrendered the land to the applicant, national courts subsequently decided, upon an action filed by the current owner of the land (a state-owned enterprise), that the land had been confiscated under Presidential Decree No. 12/1945 before the decisive date under the Church Property Settlement Act (25 February 1948) and that, therefore, it could not be returned to the applicant. The domestic proceedings ended with the Constitutional Court’s decision dated on 24 May 2022 (IV.   ÚS   337/22). The applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, challenges the alleged inconsistency of the decision-making of the Constitutional Court regarding the applicant’s entitlement to restitution under the Church Property Settlement Act, having regard to the judgments adopted by the Constitutional Court in a similar restitution matter. Moreover, the applicant’s constitutional complaint was allegedly not examined by a   formation of the Constitutional Court that would comply with the Constitutional Court Act: under section 23 of the Act, if a chamber of three judges, when deciding on a case, reaches a legal opinion that differs from the legal opinion previously expressed in a judgment ( nález ) of the Constitutional Court, it is obliged to submit the conflicting issue to the Plenary of the Constitutional Court. In the present case, however, the chamber, which dealt with the applicant’s constitutional complaint, allegedly departed from the Constitutional Court’s previous case-law concerning confiscations under President Beneš Decree No. 12 and its consequences (e.g. judgment of the Constitutional Court no. II. ÚS 1920/20 of 25 January 2021 adopted in another restitution case of the applicant, and subsequent judgments nos. I.   ÚS   1975/20 of 23 March 2021, III. ÚS 361/21 of 30 November 2021 and I.   ÚS   3918/19 of 21 December 2021) instead of referring the matter to the Plenary for consideration. Hence, the three-judge chamber decided on a question which should have allegedly been dealt with by the Plenary of the Constitutional Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the proceedings against it, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty respected in the course of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, particularly when it was called to assess whether the applicant was entitled to restitution of the property under the Church Property Settlement Act (Law no. 428/2012), having in mind the Constitutional Court’s conclusions regarding similar cases (see II. ÚS 1920/20 of 25   January   2021; I. ÚS 1975/20 of 23 March 2021; III. ÚS 361/21 of 30   November 2021 and I. ÚS 3918/19 of 21 December 2021; and also II.   ÚS   879/24 of 15 April 2024)? 2.     Was the applicant’s right to have its constitutional complaint decided by a court established by law, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, respected when the chamber of three judges of the Constitutional Court, to which the applicant’s constitutional complaint had been assigned, allegedly departed from the legal opinion expressed in the Constitutional Court’s previous relevant case-law and examined the case, instead of submitting it to the Plenary of the Constitutional Court, under section 23 of the Constitutional Court Act (Law no. 182/1993), to examine the conflicting issue? Was such a procedure in conformity with the Constitutional Court Act?