A recent Czech Supreme Court judgment (file no. 30 Cdo 1300\/2017, 25 April 2019) has found that in private law cases, Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights applies if administrative proceedings concern the direct exercise of ownership rights. In the case at hand, since the plaintiff did not own the land affected by the zoning permit, this requirement was not met. As such, it could not be argued that the zoning proceedings in any way affected her civil law title. The Supreme Court agreed that obtaining a zoning permit had been essential for the plaintiff since her business depended on it – she had planned to purchase the land, build a house on it and earn income from it. However, under the applicable ECHR case law, these factors were not the direct focus of the administrative proceedings. Those proceedings did not directly influence the existence, scope or form of the plaintiff’s right to do business. The reason for this was that the plaintiff’s right to do business arose from her potential ownership of the land and not from the outcome of the administrative proceedings.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A recent Czech Supreme Court judgment (file no. 30 Cdo 1300\/2017, 25 April 2019) has found that in private law cases, Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights applies if administrative proceedings concern the direct exercise of ownership rights. In the case at hand, since the plaintiff did not own the land […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"pravni-oblast":[],"class_list":["post-2307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\n