ECHR - Homepage of the European Court of Human Rights - ECHR
Grand Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic
The Court has delivered two Grand Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic.
The case Fu Quan S. R. O. v. the Czech Republic concerned the seizure of property amounting to nearly 2.4 million euros belonging to the applicant company in the course of a tax evasion investigation and trial. It was held for five years.
The case Grosam v. the Czech Republic concerned the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court’s issuing a fine in disciplinary proceedings to the applicant for professional misconduct, and his subsequent appeal to the Constitutional Court.
- Delivery of the two judgments
- FU QUAN, s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic (press release)
- Grosam v. the Czech Republic (press release)
- Country profile – Czech Republic
Chamber News
In the case of Bryan and Others v. Russia the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to liberty and security and a violation of the freedom of expression.
The case concerned a protest by Greenpeace activists at the Russian offshore oil-drilling platform. The protest had involved two of the activists climbing the platform after launching dinghies from a vessel sailing under the flag of the Netherlands. The Russian coastguard had subsequently intercepted the vessel and towed it to the port of Murmansk, with the activists on board. On arriving at Murmansk the activists had been arrested and their detention ordered on charges of piracy. They were released two months later under an amnesty.
In the case of Giuliano Germano v. Italy the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life.
The case concerned a police caution (ammonimento) issued against the applicant at his wife’s request after she had left him and when she complained that he was harassing and intimidating her.
The Court found that the national authorities had failed to give relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the measure, that any safeguards had been limited, and that the applicant had had inadequate legal protection against abuse.
In the case of Poklikayew v. Poland the Court held that there had been a violation of procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens.
The case concerned the applicant’s expulsion from Poland on national security grounds without his being fully informed of the reasons.
The Court found that the applicant had received only very general information about the accusations against him, while no specific actions by him which allegedly endangered national security could be seen from the file. The fact that the final decision had been taken by independent judicial authorities at a high level was not enough to counterbalance the limitations on his procedural rights.
In the case of Lorenzo Bragado and Others v. Spain the Court held that there had been a violation of the right of access to court.
The case concerned the appointment process for membership of the General Council of the Judiciary (“the GCJ”), the governing body of the judiciary in Spain. In 2018, the GCJ composition came up for renewal and the applicants, at the time Spanish judges, were candidates. In 2020 the applicant judges lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court complaining about Parliament’s failure to follow through with the process for renewing the composition of the GCJ, but it was rejected as out of time.
The Court found that the applicants could not have foreseen the way in which the relevant law on time-limits had been interpreted and applied in their case. That had impaired the very essence of their right of access to a court.
Delivered Judgments and Decisions
Grand Chamber News
On 26 June 2023 a panel of 5 judges will examine seven Grand Chamber referral requests.
The Court will be delivering two Grand Chamber rulings on 1 June 2023.
The case Fu Quan S. R. O. v. the Czech Republic concerns the seizure of property amounting to nearly 2.4 million euros belonging to the applicant company in the course of a tax evasion investigation and trial. It was held for five years.
The case Grosam v. the Czech Republic concerns the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court’s issuing a fine in disciplinary proceedings to the applicant for professional misconduct, and his subsequent appeal to the Constitutional Court.
Hearings
The Court is held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland.
The case concerns an association which complains of being deprived of the right to organise and participate in public events following the adoption of government measures to tackle COVID-19 under Ordinance O.2 COVID-19, enacted by the Swiss Federal Council on 13 March 2020. On the basis of that ordinance, public and private events were prohibited with effect from 16 March 2020. Failure to comply with the prohibition was punishable by a custodial sentence or a fine.
The Court held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others v. Switzerland.
The applicants in this case, a Swiss association and its members, complain that the State has failed to introduce suitable legislation and to put appropriate and sufficient measures in place to attain the targets for combating climate change.
Decisions
The Court has declared the application in the case of Gapoņenko v. Latvia inadmissible.
The case concerned the arrest and subsequent detention of the applicant for various alleged criminal offences related to actions directed against national independence and incitement to hatred.
The Court found that there had been a “reasonable suspicion” that the applicant had committed offences and that reasoning had not been arbitrary, when his remand had been ordered. It held that it had not been unreasonable to place the applicant in remand given his attacks had been directed against the Latvian State at a time of Russian military action or control in both Georgia and Ukraine.
The Court has declared the applications in the case of A.M. and Others v. Poland inadmissible.
The applications concerned restrictions on abortion rights in Poland. The applicants alleged that, following amendments to the legislative framework in 2020, they have effectively been banned from having access to legal abortion in the case of foetal abnormalities.
The Court found that the applicants had failed to provide any convincing medical evidence proving that they had been at real risk of being directly affected by the legislative amendments. Nor had they produced any documents relating to their personal circumstances, making it impossible to assess their individual situations.
Other News
On 22 June 2023 Tamás Sulyok, President of the Constitutional Court of Hungary, visited the Court and was received by President Síofra O’Leary. Péter Paczolay, judge elected in respect of Hungary, and Abel Campos, Deputy Registrar of the Court, also attended the meeting.
On 21 June 2023 Nataša Pirc Musar, President of the Republic of Slovenia, visited the Court and was received by President Síofra O’Leary. Marko Bošnjak, Vice-President of the Court, judge elected in respect of Slovenia, and Marialena Tsirli, Registrar of the Court, also attended the meeting.
On 19 June 2023 President Síofra O’Leary led a Court delegation to Karlsruhe for a meeting with the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. The delegation was received by Stephan Harbarth, President of the Constitutional Court, and took part in roundtable discussions with judges of the Constitutional Court.