CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

PETR KONŮPKA Following the entry into force of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention, which, inter alia, introduced a new ground for the inadmissibility of an application – the absence of a significant disadvantage, the Court began to measure these situations against this criterion as well. In cases where the observations of the general courts did not add anything new beyond the reasoning of their decisions, the Constitutional Court did not rely on it and the applicant did not indicate what arguments they would have put forward in response to the observations of the lower courts, the Court rejected the complaints on the grounds that the applicants had not suffered a significant disadvantage. 27 Last year, the Court also addressed this issue and found a violation of the right to a fair trial. In Janáček v. Czech Republic , 28 the lower courts’ observations, which the applicant did not receive for reply, were not a mere reference to the reasoning of their decisions, and it was clear from the reasoning of the Constitutional Court’s decision that the Constitutional Court had taken their content into account. The Janáček judgment, in contrast to the previous case law, further clarifies the necessary procedure of the Constitutional Court in such situations, by explicitly requiring the Constitutional Court to clearly justify its procedure, when it does not send the observations of one of the other parties to the proceedings to the applicant for comment, in the text of its decision (see § 53 of the judgment). Thus, In addition to the two previously defined conditions, i.e., that the observations of the general courts or other bodies must not contain any new arguments beyond those set out in their decisions and that the Constitutional Court must not rely on them in its decision, a third requirement has been added that the Constitutional Court must explicitly state the reasons for its decision not to send the statement to the complainant. Last year, the Court dealt with the fairness of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court also in two other, legally distinct cases. Both applications were declared inadmissible. In the case of AUTO HÉGR, a. s. v. Czech Republic 29 for being manifestly unfounded. In its decision, the Court endorsed the procedure of the Constitutional Court, which did not comment on the applicant company’s additional submission, in which it directed its objections not only against the decision of the Supreme Court but also against the decision of the Regional Court. However, the Supreme Court did not review the lower courts’ decisions in substance, since the applicant’s appeal on points of law did not comply with the admissibility requirements. Therefore, the Constitutional Court could only review the decision of the Supreme Court and could not deal with the objections to the decision of the Regional Court. According to the Court, it was therefore not necessary for the Constitutional Court to deal explicitly with the applicant’s additional submission. In Němeček v. Czech Republic , 30 the Court acknowledged that the Constitutional Court had made an error when it confused the file numbers and names of judges in its decisions on the bias of two judges of the Constitutional Court. However, these formal errors could not and did not have any influence on the outcome of the proceedings on the constitutional complaint. The applicant had not suffered any significant disadvantage, and the Court 27 E.g., Holub v. Czech Republic (no. 24880/05, decision of 14 December 2010), Bratři Zátkové, a. s. v. Czech Republic (no. 20862/06, decision of 8 February 2011), or Matoušek v. Czech Republic (no. 9965/08, decision of 29 March 2011). 28 See footnote 2.

29 Application no. 20745/15, decision of 12 January 2023. 30 Application no. 54022/18, decision of 12 January 2023.

344