Resolution ResDH (2001)154 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 3 March 2000 (final on 3 June 2000) in the case of Krčmář and others against the Czech Republic

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 December 2001 at the 775 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Krčmář and others case delivered on 3 March 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention; Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 35376/97) against the Czech Republic, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 17 March 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Roman Krčmář , Ms Marie Hanušová , Ms Jaroslava Bartošová , Ms Eduarda Ottová , Ms Dagmar Rýdlová , Ms Eva Kaňoková and Ms Michaela Krčmářová , seven Czech nationals, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint relating to the non-respect of the right to a fair trial before the Constitutional Court, since the applicants did not receive certain documentary evidence provided to the Court in order to influence the final decision and did not have the opportunity to comment on it; Whereas in its judgment of 3 March 2000 the Court unanimously: - held that Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention was applicable in this case; - held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention; - held that the government of the respondent state was to pay each of the applicants, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 1 350 000 korunas for all damage taken together; 80 000 korunas in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 10% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement; - dismissed the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction; Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention; Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 3 March 2000, having regard to the Czech Republic’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it; Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;

Having satisfied itself that on 15 August 2000, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment of 3 March 2000, Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of the Czech Republic, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution ResDH (2001)154

Information provided by the Government of the Czech Republic during the examination of the Krčmář and others case by the Committee of Ministers

The Government recalls at the outset that the violation of Article 6§1 in the present case, which did not influence the outcome of the domestic proceedings to a decisive extent, was due to an exceptional incident deviating from the Constitutional Court's well established practice of scrupulous respect for the right to fair trial, including the Court's obligation to communicate to the parties any evidence available for comments. This practice is based on national legislation, in particular on the Czech Charter of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 38§2), on the Constitutional Court Act No. 182/93 (Sections 32 and 48) and on the Code of Civil Procedure (Sections 122, 123 and 129). Following the delivery of the European Court's judgment in the Krčmář and others case, it was translated into Czech, disseminated to the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic and published (in Czech translation) notably in the Pravni Praxe (No.7/2000), a journal of Ministry of Justice widely disseminated in legal circles. In the wake of these dissemination measures, the President of the Constitutional Court addressed the whole range of issues raised by the Krčmář and others judgment at the Court's plenary meeting, including the Czech Republic's obligation to abide by the judgment (Ar ticle 46 of the Convention). The Constitutional Court furthermore expressed its regrets about the incident at the origin of the violation in the present case and reaffirmed that it scrupulously respects the European Court's judgments and fully takes them into account when interpreting the Constitution and the Convention, so as to avoid violations. In this last mentioned respect, the Government provided the Committee of Ministers with an example from the domestic case-law which, in its view, is indicative of Constitutional Court's willingness to ensure effective respect for requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, as they are set out in the judgments of the European Court (see the judgment of 13 July 2000 (3rd Chamber) § IIc ). According to the Government, this attitude on the part of the Constitutional Court, as indeed of all courts, will play an important role in the effective prevention of violations of the Convention. In view of the foregoing, the Government is of the opinion that the measures adopted following the Krčmář and others judgment are sufficient to prevent new, similar violations of the Convention and that the Czech Republic has thus complied with its obligation under Article 46§1 of the Convention in the present case.