CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 février 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   089 24.02.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment concerning the Czech Republic   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment, which is not final. [1] (This judgment is available only in French.)       Violation of Article 6 § 1 Vodárenská Akciová Společnost, A.S v. Czech Republic (application no. 73577/01) The applicant, Vodárenská akciová společnost, is a limited company incorporated under Czech law.   In June 1997 the applicant company dismissed one of its employees. In June 1998 the Znojmo District Court ( okresní soud ) ruled that the dismissal had been invalid. Its ruling was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court ( krajský soud ), which at the same time dismissed an application by the applicant company for leave to appeal on points of law ( dovolání ). The applicant company nevertheless appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court ( Nejvyšší soud ) and also lodged a constitutional appeal in order to comply with the statutory time-limit for such appeals.   On 28 March 2000 a division of the Constitutional Court declared the applicant company’s appeal inadmissible for failure to exhaust statutory remedies, as the appeal on points of law was still pending before the Supreme Court. It justified its decision by referring to its case-law and pointed out that time for lodging a constitutional appeal started to run only from the date of service of the Supreme Court’s decision.   On 27 September 2000 the Supreme Court declared inadmissible the appeal on points of law by the applicant company, which then lodged a second constitutional appeal. On 13 February 2001 a different division of the Constitutional Court dismissed that appeal as being out of time. Referring to its case-law, it held that time for lodging the appeal had started to run on the date on which the Regional Court’s decision had been served on the applicant company.   The applicant company complained that its right of access to a court had been infringed in that the Constitutional Court had declared its appeals inadmissible without examining them on the merits. It relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that in appealing on points of law, the applicant company had used a remedy available to it under the law and should not be prejudiced as a result. It also followed from the Constitutional Court Act and from that court’s first decision that the applicant company had been required to appeal on points of law in order to exhaust statutory remedies. That being so, the Court considered that time for lodging the constitutional appeal should have started to run from the Supreme Court’s decision, or at least should have stopped running once the appeal on points of law had been lodged.   In the Court’s view, the Constitutional Court’s two decisions had been contradictory and likely to cause confusion as to the date on which time for lodging a constitutional appeal began to run. They had impaired the very essence of the right of appeal by imposing on the applicant company a disproportionate burden that had upset the fair balance which had to be struck between the legitimate concern to ensure that the formal procedure for appealing to the Constitutional Court was complied with and the right of access to that court. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court’s particularly strict construction of the procedural rule in issue had deprived the applicant company of the right of access to a court. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It considered that the finding of a violation afforded sufficient redress for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant company and awarded it 700 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.     ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.