Communicated on 24 November 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 17662/15 Ivana ŠEDINOVÁ against the Czech Republic and 2 other applications (see list appended)

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

A. The circumstances of the cases

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

1. Šedinová v. the Czech Republic, no. 17662/15

On 23 March 2009 the Prague Regional Court ( krajský soud ) issued a promissory-note payment order ( smÄ›nečný platební rozkaz ) against the applicant, ordering her to pay the amount of 30,864 Czech korunas (CZK ‑ 1,150 euros (EUR)), plus interest. The applicant objected but the Regional Court confirmed the validity of the order on 7 December 2010.

On 17 October 2011, upon an appeal by the applicant, the Prague High Court ( vrchní soud ) quashed the judgment of the Regional Court.

On 23 July 2013 the Regional Court confirmed the validity of the promissory-note payment order again. The applicant appealed but the impugned decision was eventually upheld by the Prague High Court on 22 May 2014. The appellate court also instructed the applicant that an appeal on points of law ( dovolání ) with the Supreme Court ( Nejvyšší soud ) was not available in her case.

Following this instruction, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint ( ústavní stížnost ) on 2 September 2014. On 14 October 2014 the Constitutional Court ( Ústavní soud ) rejected her complaint as inadmissible for non-exhaustion of available remedies, namely an appeal on points of law. The court considered that the limit of CZK 50,000, set down in Article 238 § 1 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure as a requirement for lodging an appeal on points of law, was not applicable in the applicant ’ s case. The Constitutional Court observed:

“ ... The limit of CZK 50,000 ... does not relate to a judgment by which a court ruled that a promissory-note payment order remains valid ... ”

In addition, the Constitutional Court stated that in ambiguous cases it is solely up to the Supreme Court to examine the admissibility of an appeal on points of law. In any case, as the applicant had failed to lodge an appeal on points of law her complaint was rejected despite the erroneous information given by the High Court.

2. AUTO HÉGR, a.s . v. the Czech Republic, no. 20745/15

The applicant company is a registered joint-stock company engaged in the auto trade.

On 29 September 2011 it was ordered by the Olomouc District Court ( okresní soud ) to pay CZK 934,000 (EUR 38,030) in a civil claim.

On 7 February 2013 the District Court ordered the applicant company to pay the amount of CZK 233,500 (EUR 9,060) plus interest, and dismissed the remainder of the claim.

On 24 October 2013 the Ostrava Regional Court upheld the District Court ’ s judgment in so far as it concerned the amount of CZK 233,500 plus interest. It modified the judgment in ordering the applicant company to also pay the remaining amount of CZK 700,500 (EUR 27,177) plus interest.

On 29 January 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant company. The applicant company ’ s legal representative was served with the decision on 12 February 2014.

On 19 March 2014 the applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint, arguing that the decision of the Supreme Court had been unlawful and requesting that the Constitutional Court quash it. On 10 April 2014, within the two-month time-limit for lodging a constitutional complaint, the applicant company submitted additional submissions. It argued that the decisions of the Olomouc District Court and that of the Ostrava Regional Court had been unlawful. It further requested that the Constitutional Court quash the decision of the Ostrava Regional Court.

On 6 November 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant company ’ s constitutional complaint. It did not reflect upon the applicant company ’ s additional submissions.

3. Janáček v. the Czech Republic, no. 9634/17

On 17 December 2013 the Zlín District Court ruled on the division of the matrimonial property ( vypořádání společného jmění manželů ) of the applicant and his former wife.

On 24 March 2015 the Brno Regional Court partially altered the first-instance judgment.

On 12 January 2016 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant as manifestly ill-founded.

On 19 July 2016 the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint by the applicant, finding, inter alia :

“To assess the case, the Constitutional Court requested observations from the general courts. Having familiarised itself with their content ... the Constitutional Court came into the conclusion that the constitutional complaint is manifestly ill-founded.”

By his letter of 19 September 2016 the applicant requested an explanation from the Constitutional Court as to why he had not been given an opportunity to familiarise himself with the written observations of the Zlín District Court, the Brno Regional Court and the Supreme Court and an opportunity to express his views.

In its reply of 29 September 2016 the Constitutional Court stated that as the observations had not been sent to the applicant, the judge-rapporteur had probably considered that they had contained no new information or legal arguments.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

1. Šedinová v. the Czech Republic, no. 17662/15

Article 237 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that unless stated otherwise, an appeal on points of law against any final decision of a court of appeal is admissible if the impugned decision depends on the resolution of a question of substantive or procedural law in which a court of appeal diverted from the well-established practice of the Supreme Court. The same applies if the impugned decision concerns a question which has not yet been resolved by the Supreme Court or has been adjudicated in a different way or if the Supreme Court should assess an already resolved legal question differently.

Under Article 238 § 1 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal on points of law against a decision on a financial claim below CZK 50,000 is not admissible, unless it concerns relationships stemming from consumer contracts and labour-law relationships.

The Constitutional Court found admissible constitutional complaints lodged directly against the decision of a court of appeal on the validity of a promissory-note payment order when it concerned a sum lower than CZK 50,000 (see, decisions nos. IV. ÚS 376/11; IV. ÚS 457/10; and III. ÚS 980/13). In a similar fashion, the Supreme Court has rejected appeals on points of law for non-compliance with admissibility criteria when the sum was lower than CZK 50,000 (see, decisions nos. 29 Odo 1485/2005, and 29 Cdo 913/2012).

2. AUTO HÉGR, a.s . v. the Czech Republic, no. 20745/15

Under Section 72 § 3 of the Constitutional Court Act, a constitutional complaint may be submitted within two months of the delivery of the decision in the final procedure provided for by law.

3. Janáček v. the Czech Republic, no. 9634/17

The relevant legal provisions are described in Krčmář and Others v. the Czech Republic (no. 35376/97, §§ 24-28, 3 March 2000).

COMPLAINTS

1. Šedinová v. the Czech Republic, no. 17662/15

Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that her right of access to the Constitutional Court was violated.

2. AUTO HÉGR, a.s . v. the Czech Republic, no. 20745/15

The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court failed to consider its arguments and proposal included in its additional submissions of 10 April 2014.

3. Janáček v. the Czech Republic, no. 9634/17

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the written observations of the Zlín District Court, the Brno Regional Court and the Supreme Court on which the Constitutional Court based its decision were not served on him and he could not comment on them.

COMMON QUESTION

Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence

Represented by

17662/15

09/04/2015

Ivana ŠEDINOVÁ

31/12/1973

Praha

Jiří BÍ LEK

20745/15

23/04/2015

AUTO HÉGR, A.S.

19/12/2000

Olomouc

Petr RITTER

9634/17

31/01/2017

Ladislav JANÁČEK

10/11/1957

Říčany u Prahy

David ZAHUMENSKÝ