Judicial Protection and Fair Trial
An appeal is considered to be timely if it was filed after the expiry of the 15-day period if the appellant followed the incorrect instructions of the court on the appeal. if the decision does not contain any indication of the appeal, the time-limit for appeal, or the court before which the appeal is to be lodged, or if it contains an incorrect indication that the appeal is not admissible, an appeal may be lodged within three months of service.
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 in breach of the Code of Civil Procedure.
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 lege 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 concluded that if the complainant had followed the incorrect instruction of the Regional Court on the inadmissibility of the appeal, which was not corrected even by the subsequent decision of the High Court, the remedy must first be found in the form of opening 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.
Mgr. Jana Rechcíglová (Volfová)