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

8

X. Y. v. the CZECH REPUBLIC

29. Therefore, if the Applicant was convinced that the decision in question had not yet been duly served on him, he should have requested the service of the decision from the competent administrative authority. If he was not successful with his request to the authority and the superior administrative authority, he should have lodged an appeal anyway. As the Government mentioned above, the Applicant was acquainted with the contents of the decision, or he could have ac- quainted himself with the contents by studying the file. In the appeal he could have raised his objections to the contents themselves of the decision on the minor offence, and also, in particular, could have contended that the decision had not been duly served on him. The superior administrative authority and then also the administrative court would have had to deal with his arguments. 30. Since, then, the Applicant did not file an appeal against the decision of DD/MM/YY, either in YYYY or in YYYY, and subsequently an administrative action, he deprived the domestic authorities of the opportunity to put right the alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention by domestic law means (see Akdi- var v. Turkey , no. 21893/93, Grand Chamber judgment of 30 August 1996, § 65). His complaint about a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, consisting in the denial of an opportunity to act before the domestic authorities in the case of his “criminal” charges, the violation having been caused by non-service of the deci- sion of DD/MM/YY, is therefore inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. β) The possibility to bring an action before a court against the decision not to allow the reopening of the minor offence proceedings 31. The Government would further note that in addition to the fact that the Applicant should have lodged an appeal against the decision of DD/MM/YY in- stead of the petition for the reopening of the proceedings, he should have, if he already had filed the petition for the reopening of the minor offence proceedings, brought an administrative action against the Prague Municipality ’s rejecting deci- sion of DD/MM/YY. 32. The Government are aware that the Court does not consider the pro- ceedings on the reopening of proceedings as a direct continuation of the original proceedings, and holds that Article 6 of the Convention is not applicable to them (see, e.g., San Leonard Band Club v. Malta , no. 77562/01, judgment of 29 July 2004, § 40), and, in particular, that the applicant is not generally obligated to use this extraordinary remedy in order to meet the requirement of exhaustion of do- mestic remedies (see, e.g., Dvorak v. Italy , no. 9290/02, decision of 23 September 2004). 33. Nevertheless, the Government are of the opinion that it is not so materi- al whether an ordinary or extraordinary remedy is involved; what is material is the fact whether in the proceedings in question it is possible to achieve a review of the issue, which is subsequently the subject matter of proceedings before the Court, benefit. However, the party cannot directly file a petition for the reopening of the proceedings, because the deci sion is not yet final.”

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

205