EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION / Alla Tymofeyeva (ed.)

has been a violation of the Convention in the applicant’s case together with an undertaking to provide adequate redress and, as appropriate, to take necessary remedial measures. It is then up to the Court to decide whether the request should be granted. If it is satisfied that the declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that the respect for human rights no longer requires it to continue its examination of the case, it may strike the application out of the list of pending cases. Should that first phase be unsuccessful, due to the Government’s reluctance to negotiate, or the parties’ inability to reach consensus on the terms of a friendly settlement, it is automatically followed by the contentious phase in which the Government is expected to present their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case within further 12 weeks. It is in good practice that the Court poses a set of specific questions to parties that should be answered in their observations. In preparation of their observations, the Government extensively rely on Act No. 186/2011, on Cooperation in Proceedings before the International Tribunals and Other International Monitoring Bodies. This piece of legislation entrusts the Government Agent with significant powers in relation to the so-called bodies concerned. According to Section 1 (2) of the Act, these include courts, public prosecutor’s offices, ministries, self-government bodies, as well as other public authorities and persons exercising powers in the field of public administration. In matters relating to their activities, the bodies concerned are obliged to provide the Government Agent with free, complete, accurate and objective information and other co-operation necessary for the purposes of representing the Czech Republic. Under Section 2 (1) of the Act, the mandatory co-operation may require, inter alia , the communication of relevant information on the circumstances of the case and the sending of relevant documents, including case files, and direct consultations with persons who have previously dealt with the matter at the domestic level. Subsequently, the lawyer authorized to deal with the case by the Government Agent prepares the draft observations of the Government. In terms of content and structure, these observations contain a comprehensive summary of relevant facts accompanied by relevant annexes, overview of the applicable international and national law and case law, objections of inadmissibility, and finally the Government’s thorough legal analysis of each claimed violation of the Convention and their answers to the Court’s queries. The bodies concerned are commonly given the opportunity to comment on the draft observations. Since it cannot be assumed that everyone speaks in English or French, the initial observations are usually written in Czech. It is only after receiving and incorporating their comments that the observations are sent for translation into English or French. Once the Government’s observations have reached the Court’s Registry, the applicant is given an opportunity to react within 6 weeks and at the same time he or she is invited to specify claims for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention. Likewise, the Government is further provided equal time-limit for sending their additional observations on the applicant’s allegations and position in terms of just satisfaction. These observations are compiled directly in English or French. In vast majority of cases, the proceedings are conducted in writing only. Oral hearings are relatively scarce and mostly reserved for Grand Chamber cases. Over the years, the Court has dealt with a wide variety of applications brought against the Czech Republic. Legal issues that have been raised more frequently include violations of various fair trial guarantees, in particular delays in judicial proceedings, rent control scheme, restitution of property, circumstances of detention, contact rights between parents and children, inability of an accused to hear a witness pending trial, or international child abductions. Some judgments arising from the proceedings against the Czech Republic are landmark in the sense that the Court formulated general principles or pan-European standards for the protection of fundamental rights in the given area. This was the case, for instance, in the Grand Chamber’s judgments on indirect discrimination against Roma children in their access to education ( D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic , no. 57325/00, judgment [GC] of 13 November 2007), home

144

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION