CYIL vol. 16 (2025)

PETR KONŮPKA Government, and two were settled amicably by the parties. This result essentially mirrors the long-term record of the Czech Republic since 1993. In less than 30% of cases, the Court finds a violation of the Convention, and in more than half of the proceedings the state succeeds in its defence. If we add applications that the Court rejects without requesting the Czech Republic’s observations, the Court finds a violation of the Convention in relation to our state in only about 1–2% of applications. It was no different in 2024, when the Court decided on 324 applications and found a violation in only 2% of them. 1 In the following text, we will take a closer look at the most significant judgments of the Court from last year. And since a judgment of the Court is often only the beginning of another story, we will also look at what important developments last year brought in the area of execution of judgments. 1.1 Prosecution of sexual offences The most serious violations of the Convention were undoubtedly found in the judgments of Z v. the Czech Republic 2 and Y v. the Czech Republic , 3 where the infringed articles included Article 3, which enshrines the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The Czech Republic had previously violated this provision only four times, 4 and only twice outside a mere procedural aspect concerning the right to an effective investigation. 5 Both cases concerned sexual abuse by a Catholic priest. In both, the Court concluded that the Czech criminal law framework and the manner in which it was interpreted and applied by the authorities did not provide the applicants with sufficient protection. In Z , the applicant was repeatedly sexually abused in 2008–2009 by a priest who was her confessor and supervisor of her thesis at the theological faculty in Prague. Criminal proceedings were not initiated until 2019, following a report by a third party. In 2021, the authorities discontinued the case, concluding that the conduct amounted to the offence of sexual coercion, which, however, had only been introduced into the Criminal Code after the events in question. According to the investigators, the acts did not constitute sexual abuse under the then-applicable Criminal Code, as the applicant was neither a minor nor entrusted to the priest’s supervision. Nor did they constitute rape, as the priest did not use violence or threats of violence. Although the applicant expressed her disagreement with his conduct, she never did so before the act, only afterwards. In Y , another priest allegedly sexually abused the applicant between 2002 and 2014, when she was aged 17 to 30. In 2017, the police and district prosecutor discontinued the case, finding that it was neither rape nor another sexual offence, as the applicant, although she considered the priest’s conduct unpleasant, did not resist and tolerated it in exchange 1 Data according to the Court’s statistics available at https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/stats-analysis 2024-eng. 2 Application no. 37782/21, judgment of 20 June 2024. 3 Application no. 10145/22, judgment of 12 December 2024. 4 Bureš v. the Czech Republic, no. 37679, judgment of 18 October 2012; Kummer v. the Czech Republic, no. 32133/11, judgment of 25 July 2013; B. Ű. v. the Czech Republic, no. 9264/15, judgment of 6 October 2022; and Sládková v. the Czech Republic, no. 15741/15, judgment of 10 November 2022. 5 These are the first two judgments cited in the previous footnote. 1. Judgments of the Court

526