CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

PETR KONŮPKA is the actual state of implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Czech Republic would need to be analysed by a more thorough and broader quantitative and qualitative indicators. However, from the above figures it can be considered that the decision-making of the Czech courts is generally at a good level in terms of the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. In addition to the two judgments of violations ( Janáček v. Czech Republic 2 and V. v. Czech Republic 3 ), the Court approved one Government’s unilateral declaration in which the Government acknowledged a violation of the Convention ( Hanuša v. Czech Republic 4 ) and two friendly settlements ( Spieler v. Czech Republic 5 and Nadrchal v. Czech Republic 6 ). In 25 cases, the Court found no violation of the Convention or declared the application inadmissible. In three cases, the Court discontinued the proceedings because the applicants had stopped communicating with the Court. From a global perspective, the Czech Republic represents quite a small burden for the Court. Overall, the Court decided more than 38,000 applications last year. 7 Our state accounted for less than one per cent of this burden. Last year, the Court issued most decisions against Russia (about 5,300), Turkey (about 5,000), Romania (about 3,500), Italy (about 2,700), Poland (about 2,600), Hungary (about 2,500), and Ukraine (about 2,400). 8 If we look at these figures through the prism of the size of the country, and therefore look at the number of applications brought before the Court per 10,000 inhabitants, we find that the European average is 0.41. The number of applications lodged against the Czech Republic before the Court is lower than the average, with only 0.32 complaints per 10,000 inhabitants last year. By comparison, in neighbouring Slovakia it was 0.84, in Poland 0.50, and in Hungary even 2.57, i.e., eight times more. In Austria, on the other hand, it was only 0.22 and in Germany even 0.05. The violation found by the Strasbourg Court is often not the end of the case, but the beginning of the sometimes longer and more important for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms phase of the execution of the judgment, when the state is obliged to take general measures to prevent similar violations of the Convention in the future. In 2023, seven Czech judgments were pending in the execution proceedings. In the following, we will therefore look not only at selected judgments of the Court from last year, but also at important measures that were taken last year within the frame of the execution of judgments. 1. The Court’s decisions In its classification of importance, nine decisions issued against the Czech Republic last year have been assigned a level indicating that these decisions were not a simple application of the 2 Application no. 9634/17, judgment of 2 February 2023. 3 Application no. 26074/18, judgment of 7 December 2023. 4 Application no. 15983/21, decision of 14 September 2023. The case concerned inadequate compensation for injury caused by unlawful police action. 5 Application no. 55312/22, decision of 14 September 2023. The case concerned inadequate compensation for the length of criminal proceedings. 6 Application no. 46323/20, decision of 23 November 2023. The application concerned the termination of the proceedings for failure to pay a court fee, the imposition of which had no legal basis. 7 See the Analysis cited in footnote 2. 8 Ibid.

338