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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } Published on 17 June 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 16273/22 Carolina May MULLIS and Kateřina MULLIS against the Czech Republic lodged on 21 March 2022 communicated on 27 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the repercussions on the applicants’ right to education and freedom of movement of the measures taken by the Czech authorities 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. 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 ). This was followed by crisis measures repeatedly ordered by the Government under Law no. 240/2000 on Crisis Management ( zákon o   krizovém řízení ), restricting and prohibiting in-class lessons and activities of sport clubs. Domestic courts refused to review these measures on the procedural grounds. The Constitutional Court decided on the applicants’ constitutional complaints on 8 February 2022 (IV. ÚS 2341/21). The application raises issues under Article 6 § 1 and Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No.   4.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the minor applicant been denied the right to education, guaranteed by Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 on account of the crisis measures restricting and prohibiting in-class lessons in the period from 14 October to 20   November 2020, and restricting and prohibiting activities of sport clubs in in the period from 22 October to 20   November 2020?   2.     Has there been a violation of the minor applicant’s right to freedom of movement, guaranteed by Article   2 §   1 of Protocol No.   4 in the periods from 14 October to 20 November 2020 and from 22 October to 20   November 2020, respectively? 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?   3.     Has there been an interference with the minor applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention regarding the periods from 14 October to 20 November 2020 and from 22 October to 20   November 2020, respectively?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   4.     Did the minor applicant have at her disposal effective domestic remedies for her Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? If so, did she exhaust those remedies in order to comply with requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   5.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings initiated by the applicants? If so, did the applicants have access to a court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   6.     Does the applicant-parent have victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of her complaints under Article 8 of the Convention?   In the affirmative, has there been an interference with the applicant ‑ parent’s right to respect for her private and family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention regarding the periods from 14   October to 20   November 2020 and from 22 October to 20   November 2020, respectively?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   7.     Assuming that the applicant-parent can claim to be victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of her complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, did she have at her disposal effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? If so, did she exhaust those remedies in order to comply with requirements of Article 35   §   1 of the Convention?