CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ THE CZECH REPUBLIC BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN 2018 (such as those submitted in great numbers by the applicant in the case at hand). It was done by introducing a lump sum court fee for filing an action based on the State Liability Act (this used to be free of charge). The fee is refundable even in case of a partial success of the lawsuit. In addition, the legislature excluded the possibility of appealing on points of law in certain procedural matters and admitted videoconference as a tool to secure one’s presence at a hearing in civil proceedings. These measures do not affect the substance of the right of access to court, which forms part of the right to a fair trial covered by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 3.2 The prolonged seizure of shares may still be proportionate to the interests of criminal justice In the case of INVEST KAPA, a.s. v. the Czech Republic (no. 19782/3, committee decision of 5 July 2018), the Court dealt with a situation in which shares owned by the applicant company were seized in 2002 in the framework of criminal proceedings instituted against two natural persons, the shares being suspected to constitute the profit of these persons’ criminal activity. The applicant company first challenged the seizure and seven years later requested the release of the shares on the grounds of an unreasonable duration of the measure before the High Court and the Constitutional Court, but in vain. Slightly paradoxically, the criminal proceedings were discontinued following a presidential amnesty in 2013 in which the two accused also benefited. The Court rejected the applicant company’s complaint based on Article 1 of Protocol no. 1. It found that the impugned interference with property rights had a clear legal basis, including the possibility to repeatedly challenge the seizure of the shares before domestic courts that, moreover, duly responded to the company’s objections. It obviously pursued the legitimate interest to protect society and fight crime. The interference was also regarded as consistent with the principle of proportionality, taking in account the importance of the aim pursued on one hand and the individual burden imposed on the applicant company on the other. The company did not specify how the running of its business had been negatively affected; indeed, other rights connected with the shares had not been limited. The impugned measure was taken within the context of a large-scale investigation into an extremely extensive and complex economic crime that caused huge damage and affected thousands of victims. In addition, the extent of the investigation was considerable, and the prosecuting authorities did not remain passive. The applicant company also had at its disposal an effective remedy, including access to courts, by which it could challenge the continuing seizure of the shares in its possession. These remedies were not deficient since the courts repeatedly and thoroughly reviewed the lawfulness, the reasonableness of the duration, and the proportionality of the measure in question. In the Court’s opinion, the domestic authorities struck a fair balance between the general interests of society and the interests of the applicant company and concluded that this application was manifestly ill-founded.

481