CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 20 October 2025   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 37748/24 and 37464/24 Viktorie TOMANCOVÁ against the Czech Republic and Milan SLOVÁK against the Czech Republic lodged on 13 December 2024 and 5 December 2024 respectively communicated on 30 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the domestic courts’ refusal to review the applicants’ complaints concerning the alleged disproportionate conditions for their access to in-person university courses during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following the measures introduced by the Masaryk University and its respective faculties, from 22 November 2021 the applicants were required to submit a vaccination certificate, or a negative Covid-19 test, or to prove that they had undergone the disease to be able to attend in-person classes. Refusing to share the relevant information, the applicants did not attend in-person classes for several days. The applicants lodged an administrative lawsuit against the alleged unlawful interferences caused by the above measures. In both their cases, the first-instance court judgment dismissing the lawsuit was overturned by the Supreme Administrative Court that found the actions inadmissible for lack of a concrete individualised interference against the applicants. In line with its case-law, the court held that it had no jurisdiction to review normative measures unless concretely applied against an individual. It held that the applicants failed to prove that the impugned measures were in any way enforced in relation to them, for example, by refusing them access to a   classroom or by removing them therefrom. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeals as manifestly ill-founded by a decision no. III. ÚS 1646/23, delivered to the first applicant on 5 August 2024, and decision no. I. ÚS 284/24, delivered to the second applicant on 13 August 2024. The Constitutional Court endorsed the Supreme Administrative Court’s conclusion that there was no individualised interference with the applicants’ rights that would fall to be examined by administrative courts. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that they were denied access to a court to determine their claims. Furthermore, they rely on Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and Article 2 of the Protocol   no. 1 to argue that their rights to education and to privacy were violated on account of their inability to attend in-person university courses, and continuous pressure to undergo vaccination and to disclose sensitive information about their health without a lawful basis.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted the available and effective domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicants’ right of access to a court as guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts’ refusal to review their claims related to the measures taken by their university and respective faculties to combat the spread of the Covid-19 disease?   3.     Have there been any other violations of the Convention as alleged by the applicants?