Judgment (Just Satisfaction) of Court (Fifth Section), June 11, 2015 (case CASE OF ŠUMBERA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC)

Resolution DateJune 11, 2015
Issuing OrganizationCourt (Fifth Section)



(Application no. 44410/09)


(Just satisfaction – Striking out)


11 June 2015

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Šumbera v. the Czech Republic,

The European Court of Human Rights (Former Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

             Mark Villiger, President,              Angelika Nußberger,              Boštjan M. Zupančič,              Ganna Yudkivska,              André Potocki,              Helena Jäderblom, judges,              Zdeněk Kühn, ad hoc judge,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 May 2015,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:


  1. The case originated in an application (no. 44410/09) against the Czech Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 Augut 2009 by a Czech national, Mr František Šumbera (“the applicant”), who was born in 1945 and lives in Svitavy. He was represented before the Court by Ms D. Křápková, a lawyer practising in Brno. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vít A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice.

  2. Mr Karel Jungwiert, the judge elected in respect of the Czech Republic, was unable to sit in the case (Rule 28). Accordingly, the President of the Chamber decided to appoint Mr Zdeněk Kühn to sit as an ad hoc judge (Rule 29 § 1(b)).

  3. In a judgment delivered on 3 July 2014 (“the principal judgment”), the Court decided to join the application to four other applications (nos. 37926/05, 25784/09, 36002/09 and 65546/09) and held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see R & L, s.r.o. and Others v. the Czech Republic, nos. 37926/05, 25784/09, 36002/09, 44410/09 and 65546/09, § 127 and points 1 and 3 of the operative provisions).

  4. Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicant claimed CZK 1,084,535 (EUR 39,582) in respect of pecuniary damage, CZK 600,000 (EUR 21,898) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, CZK 80,000 (EUR 2,920) for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the domestic courts and CZK 500,000 (EUR 18,248) for those incurred in the proceedings before the Court (see R & L, s.r.o. and Others, cited above, § 140).

  5. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision...

To continue reading

Request your trial