CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2026

.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 9 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 9622/25 Michal REDL against the Czech Republic lodged on 20 March 2025 communicated on 23 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the reassessment of the prohibition on leaving the country which was imposed on the applicant on 13 September 2022, when he was conditionally released from the pre-trial detention. On 20 May 2024, the applicant requested that that prohibition be lifted, inter alia since his partner and children had moved to Spain because of the mediatisation of his criminal case. Following several procedural vicissitudes, his request was granted on 19 March 2025, on the grounds that the prohibition was no longer necessary. On the same day, the Constitutional Court (no. IV. ÚS 2609/24) dismissed as manifestly ill-founded a constitutional appeal in which the applicant complained mainly about the delays in the examination of his request of 20 May 2024; doing so, the Constitutional Court only took into account the period of examination which occurred until the date of lodging of the constitutional appeal (19 September 2024). During the period when the prohibition was in force, the applicant requested and was granted (on 1   December 2022, 8 July 2024 and 27 November 2024) three permissions to travel to Austria or to Spain for family holiday purposes. The applicant complains under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 that the interference with his right to liberty of movement was disproportionate mainly because the reassessment of the prohibition on his leaving the country, triggered by his request, took ten months. He also submits that no effective domestic remedy was available to him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the restriction placed on the applicant’s freedom to leave the territory of the respondent State necessary and justified by the public interest, within the meaning of Article 2 §§ 3 and 4 of Protocol No. 4, notably in regard to the length of its duration, the absence of periodic reassessment of its justification (see, for example, Riener v. Bulgaria , no. 46343/99, § 124, 23   May 2006, and Pagerie v. France , no. 24203/16, § 195, 19 January 2023) and the fact that the examination of his request of 20 May 2024 took ten months? 2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?