CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ THE CZECH REPUBLIC BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN 2016 nature, as contemplated in the relevant legislation, even when it comes to proceedings for damages allegedly caused by a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. 6 Conclusion It is noteworthy that the profile of the Czech Republic before the Strasbourg Court has altered dramatically in ten years since 2006. In quantitative terms, the change was undoubtedly for the good. In 2006, there have been 2 755 applications filed, 80 communicated cases, several dozens of judgments a year concluding to a violation of the Convention (most often of the length of proceedings requirement of Article 6 of the Convention), a few applications rejected (out of those previously communicated to the Czech Government). And the Czech Republic was amongst the highest case account States. Two important pieces of legislation were adopted in spring of that year – one amendment to the Act on the Responsibility for Damages caused during the Exercise of Public Power and the Act on the Unilateral Rent Increase, 7 which have both played a major role in the evolution of the caseload that applications against the Czech Republic were to represent. In qualitative terms, one can question the apparent evolution of the Court’s habits of communicating cases where it is more than probable that they would ultimately result in a finding of a violation, maybe not in all the aspects (complaints), but still in the most critical ones. Of course, a Government Agent would not complain about the visible shift in the balance between many cases lost to some extent (judgments of violation) and a few cases won (above all inadmissible applications) in 2006, in favour of lower numbers of applications dealt with and more success stories for the authorities of the respondent State in 2016 (or more broadly in the recent years). Does it mean that the work of the national authorities, in particular courts, has so significantly improved that they are no longer prone to criticism? Or a major emphasis is now put on the principle of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation doctrine, as wished by the amendment to the Preamble of the Convention brought by Protocol no. 15, even if it only awaits its entry into force? Have other things changed without them being clearly visible, such as the overall attitude of judges elected to the Court by the Parliamentary Assembly? I suspect that a part of the truth could be in all the three mentioned hypotheses, if there are not others of a similar or even heavier weight.

6 Although it seemingly belongs to the past, the Court’s case law with respect to effective remedies against excessive length of the proceedings of various types in the Czech Republic has evolved significantly since Hartman v. the Czech Republic (no. 53341/99, judgment of 10 July 2003), through Vokurka v. the Czech Republic (no. 40552/02, decision of 16 October 2007) to Drenk v. the Czech Republic (no. 1071/12, judgment of 4 September 2014), in order to mention just the milestones, alongside with the change of domestic legislation (Acts no. 192/2003, 160/2006 and 7/2009) and development of decision making practice of both the administration and the courts. 7 Acts nos. 160/2006 and 107/2006 respectively.

595