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

12

X. Y. v. the CZECH REPUBLIC

DD/MM/YY. This confirmation of receipt clearly shows that there were two at- tempts at serving the document, as was required by Section 24 of the Rules of Administrative Procedure as in force at that period. In the bottom left corner of the confirmation of receipt there are two dates of the attempts, together with the deliverer’s signature, specifically DD/MM/YY and DD/MM/YY. 52. Therefore it is not true, as the Applicant claims, that there was no sec- ond attempt. The Government therefore believe that the service of the decision in question was carried out in compliance with the law. 53. It is a fact that the Applicant did not collect the shipment at the post of- fice. Therefore, the statutory fiction of service applied, and the decision was deemed delivered without the Applicant having familiarised himself with it at that moment. 54. The Government believe that these procedural regulations are not un- reasonable in relation to the aim pursued and do not interfere with the very es- sence of the right of access to a court, a violation of which the Applicant ultimate- ly claims. 55. The Government would recall that according to the Court’s established case law the right of access, i.e., the right to a court hearing on criminal charges, is an aspect of the right to a court laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. However, the right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and in place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals. In laying down such regulation the States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation. It is no part of the Court’s function to substitute for the assessment of the national authorities any other assessment of what might be the best policy in this field. Nonetheless, the limitations applied must not impair the very essence of the right; the adopted limitations must pursue a legitimate aim and there must be a reasona- ble relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, e.g., Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom , no. 8225/78, judgment of 28 May 1985, § 57). 56. In the case under consideration, the above regulation pursued the aim of legal certainty and proper performance of public administration. Therefore im- portant ad ministrative decisions had to be served to the addressee’s h ands, but it also had to be ensured that the adopted decisions have the intended effects and that it be not possible to negate them entirely by avoiding collecting them. There- fore the law provided for a specific procedure to be followed when serving docu- ments to the ad dressee’s (natural person’ s) hands and the Government are of the opinion that in the relevant period, i.e., prior to DD/MM/YY, this procedure was quite liberal and favourable for the addressees. Before the fiction of service could apply, there had to be two attempts at making a personal delivery at the address for service. Moreover, the fiction of service did not apply if the addressee proved that he was not staying at the place of the service at the relevant time.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

209