CYIL 2015

VÍT ALEXANDER SCHORM CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ All the other complaints, amongst others that of a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, were declared inadmissible by the Court. It can be noted that, had the courts’ scrutiny been slightly different in the case at hand, there would probably not have been an in concreto violation of the Convention. Be it as it may, it seems that a change of the judicial interpretation of the relationship between various actions under the Code of Administrative Justice would represent an appropriate general measure of implementation of the judgment. All the Court has said equals the need to have at least a subsequent judicial review of administrative inspections. The Czech legal order did not contradict this principle in theory, but it was not observed in practice. 8 It also appears to be a matter of legal certainty, so that competitors (or other individuals or private entities outside the context of economic competition) are aware of the legal avenues leading to relatively quick protection of a judge which would be appropriate for, and focused on, an assessment of law compliance of an interference under Article 8 of the Convention. 2.2 Involuntary stay in hospital The case of Dvořáček v. the Czech Republic (no. 12927/13, judgment of 6 November 2014) was brought to the Court through non-governmental organisations interested in mental disability issues. The applicant suffered from an illness whose progression influenced, amongst other things, his behaviour. Before being ordered protective medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital, he had been prosecuted for crimes related to his paedophilia. He later alleged that the hospital had forced him to accept surgical castration and that, when he had refused, he had been obliged to take anti-androgens. He also complained about various forms of inhuman or degrading treatment in the hospital ( e.g. the presence of female personnel in showers, an inadequate bed in which he was not allowed to stay during the day in spite of his backache, etc. ). No State authority – the ombudsman, health care authorities, or the courts when dealing with the applicant’s action for the protection of personality – found serious defects in the applicant’s treatment. The applicant insisted in having his case determined on the basis of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court was persuaded neither that the conditions of stay in the psychiatric hospital cumulatively attained the threshold of seriousness required by Article 3, nor that the applicant faced pressure to undergo surgical castration and was under forced medication. His version of the latter set of facts was not supported by documents; the applicant had not been sanctioned for his refusal of anti-androgens and had taken these with his own consent, though it would have been preferable to provide 8 The applicant company’s law firm was honoured by one of The Lawyer European Awards for the judgment. It was found that the firm had employed a “novel and innovative argument”.

408