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

9

X. Y. v. the CZECH REPUBLIC

and whether these proceedings are effective and provide the applicant with rea- sonable prospects of success. It is the only way to satisfy one of the fundamental Convention principles, the principle of subsidiarity of the human rights protection provided by the Court (see, e.g., the Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Akdivar , cited above, § 65). 34. The Government would further note that the Court has already accepted in the past that a certain shortcoming that took place in the criminal proceedings themselves can be put right in the proceedings on reopening of the proceedings, and it can be so even if the original proceedings are not reopened (see Vebiu v. the Czech Republic , no. 46168/99, decision of 26 July 2003, point 1). 35. In the case under consideration, the key issue in the proceedings on the reopening of the proceedings was whether the decision of DD/MM/YY had been duly served on the Applicant and therefore whether this decision had become final and the objective three-year time limit for the possibility to order the reopening of the proceedings had started to run. Accordingly, the facts behind this issue are the same as the subject matter of the proceedings before the Court. 36. According to constant domestic case law (see, in particular, the Consti- tutional Court’s Judgment under File Ref. IV. ÚS 366/96 of 13 June 1997 or the Su preme Administrative Court’s judgment under File Ref. 6 A 63/2002 – 40 of 30 September 2003), it is possible to bring an action before an administrative court against a decision not allowing the reopening of administrative proceedings. Therefore the administrative court would have had an opportunity to assess whether or not the decision of DD/MM/YY was duly served on the Applicant, and thus to put things right for the Applicant, if appropriate. 2 37. Since the Applicant did not bring an action against the decision not to allow reopening of the minor offence proceedings, he did not exhaust all domestic remedies, and his complaint about a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, con- sisting 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 the non- service of the decision of DD/MM/YY, is therefore inadmissible for the non- exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. b) Inadmissibility plea on the grounds of the application being late 38. If the Court does not accept the inadmissibility plea on the grounds of the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies on the basis of its concluding that, given the circumstances, the remedies in question could not have put right the alleged 2 Apparently, this redress could not consist in the ordering of the reopening of the minor offence proceedings, because, as the Government mentioned above, in a situation where the decision had not been duly served, it had not become final, and therefore the proceedings could not have been reopened because the proceedings had not ended yet. Nevertheless, the administrative authority would have been obligated, on the basis of the court’s conclusion on the non -service of the deci- sion of 2 May 2000, to serve the decision and a new time limit for lodging an appeal would have started to run.

206

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION