SUVERÉNNÍ ŘÁD MALTÉZSKÝCH RYTÍŘŮ - ČESKÉ VELKOPŘEVORSTVÍ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Published on 20 October 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 23803/23 SUVERÉNNÍ ŘÁD MALTÉZSKÝCH RYTÍŘŮ - ČESKÉ VELKOPŘEVORSTVÍ against the Czech Republic lodged on 5 June 2023 communicated on 3 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns court proceedings, initiated by the applicant, a Roman Catholic Parish, under section 18 of the Church Property Settlement Act (Law no. 428/2012), in which the applicant sought a declaration of the State ownership of land that, having been seized from the applicant’s legal predecessor by the former communist regime, was subsequently transferred to a new private owner apparently in breach of section 29 (“blocking provision”) of the Land Ownership Act (Law no. 229/1991). The domestic proceedings ended by the Constitutional Court’s decision dated on 14 February 2023 (IV. ÚS. 3238/22). The applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, contests the alleged inconsistency of the domestic courts’ decisions regarding the applicant’s claim under the Church Property Settlement Act, having regard to the judgments adopted by the Constitutional Court in similar restitution matter. The domestic courts allegedly departed from the Constitutional Court’s previous established case-law (e.g. II. ÚS 1920/20 of 25 January 2021; I. ÚS 1975/20 of 23 March 2021; III. ÚS 361/21 of 30 November 2021 and I. ÚS 3918/19 of 21 December 2021) and, thus, violated the principle of legal certainty.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the proceedings against it, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty respected in the course of the proceedings before the domestic courts, particularly when they were called to assess whether the applicant was entitled to restitution of the property under the Church Property Settlement Act (Law no. 428/2012), having in mind the Constitutional Court’s conclusions regarding similar cases (see II. ÚS 1920/20 of 25 January 2021; I. ÚS 1975/20 of 23 March 2021; III. ÚS 361/21 of 30 November 2021 and I. ÚS 3918/19 of 21 December 2021)? 2.  Was the applicant’s right to have its constitutional complaint decided by a court established by law, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, respected when the chamber of three judges of the Constitutional Court, to which the applicant’s constitutional complaint had been assigned, allegedly departed from the legal opinion expressed in the Constitutional Court’s previous relevant case-law and examined the case, instead of submitting it to the Plenary of the Constitutional Court, under section 23 of the Constitutional Court Act (Law no. 182/1993), to examine the conflicting issue? Was such a procedure in conformity with the Constitutional Court Act?