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

4

X. Y. v. the CZECH REPUBLIC

8. The Government would note that the Applicant has failed to exhaust all domestic remedies, using which he could have achieved a review of the lawful- ness of the service of the decision on the minor offence of DD/MM/YY. Further- more, the Government would note that Article 6 of the Convention does not apply to proceedings on the execution of punishment. The Government also believe that the case under consideration can be classified as an abuse of the right of applica- tion. The Court poses a question as to whether the proceedings in which the lawfulness of the criminal charge against the Applicant was determined were fair within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention, particularly as regards the noti- fication of the administrative decision of DD/MM/YY and the courts’ hearing of his argument concerning the non-service. 10. The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows: The first proceedings are the minor offence proceedings. Moreover, these proceedings consist of two parts which can also be regarded as separate proceed- ings to a certain extent. The first part are the minor offence proceedings proper, conducted at only one level before an administrative authority and concluded by the decision on the minor offence delivered on DD/MM/YY. The second part of the first proceedings dealt with the reopening of the minor offence proceedings. This set of proceedings was conducted at two levels before administrative authori- ties and was concluded by the Prague Municipality ’s decision of DD/MM/YY. The other proceedings are the enforcement proceedings, in which the execu- tion of the punishment – the fine imposed in the minor offence proceedings was ordered. These proceedings were conducted at three levels of the judiciary and before the Constitutional Court, which delivered its decision on DD/MM/YY. 12. As the Government shall show below, even the Court views the “crim i- nal” proceeding s themselves and the possible subsequent enforcement proceed- ings as two separate sets of proceedings. Accordingly, this should also be the ap- proach in the case under consideration. Therefore, in the first place it is necessary to assess whether Article 6 of the Convention applies to each of the proceedings, whether also the other prerequisites for the admissibility of the application were satisfied in relation to each of the proceedings and, finally, if applicable, whether each of the proceedings satisfied all the requirements placed on them by Article 6 of the Convention. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 9. „ In the determination of (…) any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair (…) hearing (…) by an independent and impartial tribunal (…)“ 11. The Government would note that in the case under consideration, two sets of proceedings were conducted at the domestic level, and although these two sets of proceedings are closely related, they are different and separate.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

201