CYIL 2012

THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN 2011 Administrative Court. However, it failed to provide the applicants with these observations while considering and accepting arguments in the cases. The applicants complained that the proceedings were not adversarial and thus violated their fair trial rights. Based on the case of Milatová and Others, 13 the ECtHR concluded that the arguments submitted in the observations were material for the proceedings. Since the applicants could not familiarise themselves with the observations and respond to them, Article 6 was violated. 14 Similar concerns were raised in the case of Kysilková and Kysilka. 15 The Court reached the same conclusion – the observations constituted reasoned opinions on merits of the applicants’ constitutional complaint, manifestly aiming to influence the decision. Without the opportunity to comment on the observations the procedure did not enable the applicants to participate properly in the proceedings. On the other hand, the applicants did not succeed with their complaint that the proceedings were not public. The Court found that they waived their right to a public hearing and it did not appear that the dispute raised any issues of public importance that would make a hearing necessary. The applicant companies 3A.CZ s.r.o. 16 and BENet Praha, spol. s r.o . 17 also succeeded with the claim that its right to an adversarial hearing was breached for the same reasons as stated above. However, the latter applicant company failed to convince the Court that its rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were violated. During administrative proceedings against the applicant company and criminal proceedings against the manager of the company, its bank accounts, business documents and cash were seized. The applicant company alleged that the seizure was unjustified and lasted an overly long time. In the Court’s opinion the alleged crime was highly sophisticated, involving millions of Euros and financial operations among foreign and offshore companies. The Court concluded that due to the extent of the investigations and availability of remedies, the length of the investigation and the seizure of the applicant company’s assets did not violate Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

13 Milatová and Others v the Czech Republic App no 61811/00 (ECHR, June 2005). 14 At the same time, there has been a more lenient approach developing in the case-law addressing the same concerns. In the case of Holub v the Czech Republic (App no 24880/05, ECHR, December 2010), the Court took into account that the observations from the lower courts had not brought up any new arguments and the applicant had not come up with any relevant responses to the observations and declared the applications inadmissible. For the first time with regard to the Czech Republic it applied the new admissibility criterion – significant disadvantage. Following this line of reasoning the Court rejected three more cases as inadmissible in 2011. 15 Kysilková and Kysilka v the Czech Republic App no 17273/03 (ECHR, February 2011). 16 3A.CZ s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic App no 21835/06 (ECHR, February 2011). 17 BENet Praha, spol. s r.o. v the Czech Republic App no 33908/04 and others (ECHR, February 2011).

283