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

2

X. Y. v. the CZECH REPUBLIC

1. In its letter of DD/MM/YY the European Court of Human Rights (here- inafter “the Court”) notified the Government of the Czech Republic (hereinafter “the Government”) that X. Y. (hereinafter “the Applicant”) had submitted an a p- plication to the Court against the Czech Republic, filed under no. 12345/67. At the same time the Court invited the Government to submit their observations on the admissibility and merits of this application in the light of the following questions:

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of any crimi- nal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Conven- tion? In particular, was the administrative decision of DD/MM/YY properly notified to him? Did the national courts deal with the appli- cant's argument concerning this issue?

THE FACTS

I. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 2. The Government have no fundamental objections to the description of the facts of the case as presented by the Court in the summary of the facts based on the Applicant’s assertions; however, they consider it to be useful to add the following facts. […] 3. On DD/MM/YY the Prague 1 District Court delivered a decision in which it discontinued the enforcement of the decision on the minor offence of DD/MM/YY, because on DD/MM/YY the Applicant had paid the fine amounting to CZK 2,000 and also the costs amounting to CZK 500 and the entitled person, the Prague 4 Municipal District ( Městská část Praha 4 ), agreed with the discon- tinuation. a) Act no. 7 1/1967 on administrative proceedings (Rules of Administra- tive Procedure) 4. Under Section 24, important documents and decisions in particular shall be notified to the addressee’s hands . Before 30 June 2000, if the addressee of a document that was to be delivered to the addressee’s hands was not found, although he was staying at the place of service, the deliverer was obliged to notify him in an appropriate manner that he would come to serve the document again at a specified day and hour. If the new attempt was not successful, the deliverer was obliged to deposit the document at the post office and notify the addressee thereof in an appropriate manner. If the addressee did not collect the document within three days from its deposit the last II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

199