CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s58162F92 { width:124.52%; border-collapse:collapse } .s62DEA0DB { width:6.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6EC7F0F6 { width:29.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s404E38D { width:21.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5F419D3 { width:22.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFB8E93C9 { width:20.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE7679C34 { width:6.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s34F8B2E9 { width:29.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD8BB8D59 { width:21.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9AC405FA { width:22.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s88AC54B5 { width:20.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 24 October 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 54651/20 Alice CRITES and Michael RABINOVITZ against the Czech Republic lodged on 1 December 2020 communicated on 5 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicants’ pecuniary claim before the domestic courts. Although the amount of the applicants’ claim, considered separately from the other co-claimants, was lower than the financial limit allowing for an appeal on points of law, the Constitutional Court (no. I. ÚS 1193/20) rejected the applicants’ constitutional appeal for non-exhaustion of all domestic remedies, stating without any further explanation that they should have filed an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. Relying on Article 6, the applicants complain about the lack of access to the Constitutional Court. In their view the Constitutional Court erred by not having reviewed the decisions of the lower courts, given that the appeal on points of law was not available to them. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have access to the Constitutional Court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention? Namely, did the rejection on formal grounds of their constitutional appeal result from an omission imputable to the Constitutional Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Zemanová v. the Czech Republic , no. 6019/03, 13 December 2005, and Faltejsek v. the Czech Republic , no. 24021/03, 15 May 2008)?   APPENDIX     No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Alice CRITES 1963 American Bethesda 2. Michael RABINOVITZ 1960 American Bethesda