CYIL 2015

408

VÍT ALEXANDER SCHORM

CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ

All the other complaints, amongst others that of a violation of Article 6 § 2 of

the Convention, were declared inadmissible by the Court.

It can be noted that, had the courts’ scrutiny been slightly different in the case at

hand, there would probably not have been an

in concreto

violation of the Convention.

Be it as it may, it seems that a change of the judicial interpretation of the relationship

between various actions under the Code of Administrative Justice would represent

an appropriate general measure of implementation of the judgment. All the Court

has said equals the need to have at least a subsequent judicial review of administrative

inspections. The Czech legal order did not contradict this principle in theory, but it

was not observed in practice.

It also appears to be a matter of legal certainty, so that

competitors (or other individuals or private entities outside the context of economic

competition) are aware of the legal avenues leading to relatively quick protection

of a judge which would be appropriate for, and focused on, an assessment of law

compliance of an interference under Article 8 of the Convention.

2.2 Involuntary stay in hospital

The case of

Dvořáček v. the Czech Republic

(no. 12927/13, judgment of 6 November

2014) was brought to the Court through non-governmental organisations interested

in mental disability issues.

The applicant suffered from an illness whose progression influenced, amongst

other things, his behaviour. Before being ordered protective medical treatment in a

psychiatric hospital, he had been prosecuted for crimes related to his paedophilia.

He later alleged that the hospital had forced him to accept surgical castration and

that, when he had refused, he had been obliged to take anti-androgens. He also

complained about various forms of inhuman or degrading treatment in the hospital

(

e.g.

the presence of female personnel in showers, an inadequate bed in which he was

not allowed to stay during the day in spite of his backache,

etc.

). No State authority

– the ombudsman, health care authorities, or the courts when dealing with the

applicant’s action for the protection of personality – found serious defects in the

applicant’s treatment.

The applicant insisted in having his case determined on the basis of Articles 3

and 13 of the Convention.

The Court was persuaded neither that the conditions of stay in the psychiatric

hospital cumulatively attained the threshold of seriousness required by Article 3, nor

that the applicant faced pressure to undergo surgical castration and was under forced

medication. His version of the latter set of facts was not supported by documents;

the applicant had not been sanctioned for his refusal of anti-androgens and had

taken these with his own consent, though it would have been preferable to provide

The applicant company’s law firm was honoured by one of The Lawyer European Awards for the

judgment. It was found that the firm had employed a “novel and innovative argument”.