CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 September 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 5627/22 DOPRAVNÍ ROZVOJOVÉ STŘEDISKO ČR A.S. against the Czech Republic lodged on 20 January 2022 communicated on 4 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the restriction of the applicant company’s ownership rights by its obligation to tolerate, free of charge, the operation of a publicly accessible purpose-built road on one of the plots of land which the applicant company acquired from a state enterprise in liquidation in a public auction sale. The applicant company complains that the road is being operated without its consent because the conditions for the transfer of the former owner’s consent, as laid down by the Constitutional Court in its case-law (II.   ÚS 268/06 of 9 January 2008), have not been met. According to the applicant company, the relevance of this case-law was not properly assessed by the domestic courts, including the Constitutional Court (I. ÚS 2083/21 of 5 October 2021) which failed to examine the applicant company’s arguments raised under Article 11 of the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The applicant company relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 §   1 the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1, on account of its obligation to tolerate, without compensation, the operation of the publicly accessible purpose-built road on one of the plots of land which the applicant company had acquired from the state enterprise in liquidation in the public auction sale?   If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company?   2.     Has the respondent State complied with its positive obligations under the said provision? Has it provided the applicant company with an appropriate legal mechanism allowing it to assert its property rights (see   Kotov v. Russia [GC], no. 54522/00, § 114, 3 April 2012, with further references)?