CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mai 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 17 June 2024   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 12083/22 and 32396/22 Milan MRÁZ against the Czech Republic and Growth Gym s.r.o. against the Czech Republic lodged on 25 February 2022 and 27 June 2022 respectively communicated on 27 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern various measures adopted by the Czech Government in response to the spreading of the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus that causes Covid-19 in the context of the state of emergency in autumn 2020 and spring 2021. The measures concerned the prohibition of free movement of persons among districts of the Czech Republic (application no. 12083/22) and the restriction and prohibition of activities of sports clubs (application no.   32396/22). In particular, on 30 September 2020 the Government of the Czech Republic declared a state of emergency on the basis of Constitutional Law no. 110/1998 on Security of the Czech Republic ( ústavní zákon o   bezpečnosti České republiky ). During the state of emergency which lasted until 11 April 2021, the Government adopted, under Act No. 240/2000 on Crisis Management ( zákon o krizovém řízení ), various crisis measures, including those which prohibited or restricted the operation of sports clubs or those which prohibited, with exceptions, the movement of people between districts of the Czech Republic. Domestic courts refused to review these measures on procedural grounds. The Constitutional Court decided on the applicants’ constitutional complaints on 4 January 2022 (Pl. ÚS 34/21 and Pl. ÚS 40/21). The applications raise issues under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Article   2 of Protocol No.   4, Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Application no. 12083/22: 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty of movement, guaranteed by Article   2 §   1 of Protocol No.   4 in the period from 1   to 21 March 2021? In particular, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to protect the population’s health? What is the State’s margin of appreciation in this context? Have the authorities envisaged or considered any less severe measures in the present case to achieve the aim pursued?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? If so, did he exhaust those remedies in order to comply with requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings initiated by the applicant? If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   Application no. 32396/22: 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 in the period from 14 October 2020 to 22 January 2021? If so, did it fulfil the requirements of lawfulness under that Article?   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 (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   2.     Did the applicant company have at its disposal effective domestic remedies for its Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? If so, did it exhaust those remedies in order to comply with requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings initiated by the applicant company? If so, did the applicant company have access to a court for the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? If so,   did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of adversarial trial respected in the proceedings before the Prague Municipal Court, as regards the failure to provide the applicant company with a copy of the observations filed by the defendant (Government)?