CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 5 January 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 30276/25 Kryštof STUPKA against the Czech Republic lodged on 26 September 2025 communicated on 10 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a LGBT+ activist who applied to join as a civil party criminal proceedings initiated in November 2022 following his criminal complaint for threatening comments published under his posts on his then Twitter account. Allegedly to simplify evidencing his claim for damages and facilitate his procedural steps, the authorities collected a large amount of information concerning the applicant - such as movements on his bank accounts, his activity on social media, e-mail communication with the university where he wanted to follow a doctorship programme – and included it into the criminal file, which was accessible inter alia to the person charged. The applicant’s complaints in this respect were dismissed by the Supreme Prosecutor who did not consider the interference unlawful or excessive. By the decision no.   II.   ÚS   144/25 of 23 May 2025 (served on 28 May 2025), the constitutional appeal in which the applicant complained in particular about a   breach of his rights to privacy was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court did not find any excess or arbitrariness in the authorities’ conduct, considering that the information collected was relevant and useful to assess the applicant’s claim for damages and the interference proportionate. Later, the criminal prosecution of the presumed author of the offence was conditionally discontinued by the prosecutor; no causal link had been found between the latter’s action and the moral damages claimed by the applicant. The applicant’s subsequent complaint was dismissed. Mainly under Article 8 the applicant complains about a secondary victimisation and an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with his right to respect for private life, which is likely to have a chilling effect on victims of criminal offences who apply for damages and are active in realising their procedural rights as civil parties. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?