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

10

X. Y. v. the CZECH REPUBLIC

violation of Article 6 of the Convention, the Government subsidiarily plead inad- missibility of the application for belatedness. 39. In the case of Lazzari v. Italy (no. 9363/04, decision of 24 March 2005), the facts of which are almost identical, the Court concluded that if at the domestic level there is no effective domestic remedy providing the possibility of putting right the defect of non-service of a decision in criminal proceedings, the six- month time period for submitting the application to the Court begins when the decision in question becomes definitive. According to the Court, this is the mo- ment of either the adoption of the decision, or the day when the applicant familiar- ised himself with the contents of the decision, at the latest. 40. The Court has further held that filing of a petition for reopening of pro- ceedings causes suspension of the time limit for submitting an application to the Court only if the original proceedings are reopened (see the decision in the case of Dvorak v. Italy , cited above). 41. In the case under consideration, the Applicant was aware of the contents of the decision, as the Government mentioned above, on the day of service of the decision of the Prague 1 District Court ordering the enforcement of the decision on the minor offence, i.e., DD/MM/YY, at the latest. Since the petition for reo- pening of the minor offence proceedings was not granted, the time limit for sub- mitting an application to the Court expired on DD/MM/YY. 42. Since the Applicant submitted his application to the Court as late as DD/MM/YY, his application must be regarded as late and it must be declared in- admissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. (iii) On the admissibility of the application in relation to the enforcement proceedings 43. The Government would note that the second par t of the Applicant’s a p- plication is directed against the courts’ course of action in the proceedings on the enforcement of the minor offence decision, and he contends, in particular, that the court did not deal with his plea that the decision on the minor offence had not been duly served on him. a) Inadmissibility plea on the grounds of incompatibility with the Con- vention ratione materiae 44. The Government would recall that according to established and exten- sive case law of the Convention protection bodies, Article 6 of the Convention is not applicable to proceedings on the execution of punishment (see H. A. v. Austria , no. 16266/90, Commission decision of 7 May 1990, Aydin v. Turkey , no. 41954/98, decision of 14 September 2000, Hormaechea Cazon v. Spain , nos. 55914/00 and 58071/00, decision of 7 June 2001, Grava v. Italy , no. 43522/98, decision of 5 December 2002 or Pilla v. Italy , no. 64088/00, deci- sion of 23 September 2004, Lazzaro v. Italy , cited above, and others).

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

207