7. 11. 2022

Judicial Protection and Fair Trial

An appeal is considered to be timely if it was filed after the expiry of the 15-day period it the appellant followed the incorrect instructions of the court on the appeal.  This is the case, if the decision does not contain any indication of the appeal, the time limit for appeal, the court before which the appeal is to be lodged, or if it contains an incorrect indication that the appeal is not admissible in these cases, an appeal may be lodged within three months.

The Constitutional Court recently addressed on incorrect instruction. 

By the Regional Court in Brno, the Regional Court admitted the modification of the application for a preliminary injunction and at the same time instructed the complainant that no appeal against that point was admissible. Although the applicant appealed against the decision of the Regional Court only for other reasons she also submitted that the Court of First Instance had allowed the modification of the original application for the preliminary injunction.

The Constitutional Court found in the past that it is the task of the Court of Appeal to fully review the decision.

In the present case, the modification of the application was however decided only in the context of the decision on preliminary injunction.  The Constitutional Court took the position that even in the case of preliminary injunctions it is desirable that the subject matter of the proceedings should be made clear before the decision itself is handed down, even though in this case it is a decision of a preliminary nature.

 According to the Constitutional Court, an appeal was ex ledge admissible thus, the petition had to fully examined, even though, the complainant did not file this due to incorrect instructions.

The Constitutional Court emphasized the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which the complainant cannot be blamed for the court's failure to instruct on the appeal, if the complainant relied on it.

 Further, the Constitutional Court found that by incorrectly instructing the complainant on the appeal, the Regional Court had denied her access to the Court of Appeal and violated her right to judicial protection.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court granted the possibility of an appeal to the High Court in relation to the review of the first point of the Regional Court's decision allowing the modification of the application for a preliminary injunction.

by Jana Rechcíglová

Download

G&P Newsletter 3/2022 (PDF)

Author

Neuigkeiten & Publikationen

Gesellschaftsrechtliche Nebenvereinbarungen in Tschechien

Gesellschaftsrechtliche Nebenvereinbarungen in Tschechien

Das Kapitel zu Tschechien von Martin Holler im Handbuch Gesellschaftsrechtliche Nebenvereinbarungen in Europa gewährt einen Überblick über schuldrechtliche Nebenvereinbarungen von Gesellschaftern verschiedener Handelsgesellschaften nach dem tschechischen Recht.

Gesellschaftsrechtliche Nebenvereinbarungen in der Slowakei

Gesellschaftsrechtliche Nebenvereinbarungen in der Slowakei

Das Kapitel zu der Slowakei von Zuzana Tužilová im Handbuch Gesellschaftsrechtliche Nebenvereinbarungen in Europa gewährt einen Überblick über schuldrechtliche Nebenvereinbarungen von Gesellschaftern verschiedener Handelsgesellschaften nach dem slowakischen Recht.

Martin Holler als Referent: Anwaltsfehler – und wie man sie vermeiden kann

Martin Holler als Referent: Anwaltsfehler – und wie man sie vermeiden kann

Martin Holler wird im Rahmen der Tagung "Anwaltsfehler - und wie man sie vermeiden kann" in Hamburg zum Thema Kommunikation mit Mandanten über anwaltliche Fehler refereieren.