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

3

X. Y. v. the CZECH REPUBLIC

day of that time limit was deemed to be the date of service even if the addressee did not know about the deposit. As of 1 July 2000, the obligation to make the second attempt at service was abolished and it was provided that if the addressee of a document that is to be de- livered to the addressee’s hands is not found, although he is staying at the place of service, the deliverer shall deposit the document at the post office and notify the addressee of that in an appropriate manner. If the addressee does not collect the document within three days from its deposit the last day of that time limit shall be deemed to be the date of service, even if the addressee did not know about the deposit. b) Act no. 99/1963, the Rules of Civil Procedure 5. Under Section 268(1)(a), the enforcement of a decision shall be discon- tinued if it was ordered although the decision had not yet become enforceable. c ) The Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment under File Ref. 4 As 27/2003 – 77 6. In this judgment of 18 September 2003, the Supreme Court noted, inter alia , the following:

“In this connection it must be noted that also the Rules of Administra- tive Procedure are usually interpreted in the way that in the case of ‘denial’ of the opportunity to participate in the proceedings, leading to non-service of the decision on the merits, the situation can still be put right by using an ordinary remedy ( cf . Vopálka, V., Šimůnková, V., Šolín, M.: Správní řád, komentář [ The Rules of Administrative Proce- dure, commentary ], C. H. Beck Prague 1999, notes on Sections 14, 52 and 62). ”

THE LAW 7.

The Applicant asserts, in particular, that: – the minor offence with which he was charged was heard in his ab- sence, and he was thus prevented from actively participating in the proceedings, and the reason for that was that the administrative au- thority’s decision of DD/MM/YY had never been duly served on him, – delays in the enforcement proceedings before the Prague 1 District Court prevented him from filing a petition for the reopening of the minor offence proceedings on time, – in the enforcement proceedings, the courts did not deal with his plea of the absence of notification of the decision on the minor offence.

200

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION