The Constitutional Court states that it has already considered the question of delays in proceedings before the general courts in a number of its decisions. Justifiable delays in proceedings include an “other actions” infringing the petitioner’s fundamental rights ?Art. 87 para. 1 let. d) of the Constitution of the CR and § 72 para. 1 let. a) of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court?, enshrined in Art. 38 para. of the Charter and in Art. 6 para. 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the “Convention”). Both of these cited provisions guarantee everyone’s right to have his case heard without unnecessary delays (or in a reasonable time), and it is naturally inconsistent with these provisions if unnecessary delays in proceedings occur in a particular case before a general court. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly ruled that delays in proceedings can not be justified even by the generally known overload on the courts, because “it is up to the state to organize its judiciary so that judicial principles enshrined in the Charter and the Convention are observed and any shortcomings in this regard can not be to the detriment of citizens who justifiably expect from the courts protection of their rights in a reasonable time” (e.g. judgment file no. IV. US 55/94, The Constitutional Court of the CR: Collection of Judgments and Resolutions, vol. 2, p. 39). It must be said that this legal opinion also conforms to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the interpretation and application of the Convention.

In the adjudicated matter, the Constitutional Court first of all states that proceedings in matters of the commercial register are governed by § 200a et seq. of the Civil Procedure Code. Under § 200c para. 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court is required to take actions directed toward deciding the matter within 15 days after an application is filed. The court decides on the content of a file by resolution, and shall make an entry within ten days after the resolution on the content goes into legal effect (§ 200d para. 3, 4 of the Civil Procedure Code). Thus, it is evident that registration proceedings are a special type of proceedings before the general courts, characterized particularly by the legislature’s interest in speedy decision making, which is possible in view of the nature of these proceedings. In other words, in deciding commercial register matters, the court generally judges only the formal conditions for the application, provided by legal regulations (§ 200d para. 1 of the Civil Procedure Code), and if these conditions are met, it is required to make the entry. Therefore, in this type of proceedings the court’s process is considerably different from other types of proceedings in which the general court is given considerably greater space for its own deliberation and where it judges often very difficult factual and legal circumstances in a particular matter.

In this case, the Constitutional Court found that the Hradec Králové Regional Court informed the petitioner that “the submitted application will be processed only after the High Court’s decision on the appeal”. The reason for this was – according to the communications from the Ministry of Justice and the court – the fact that the computer equipment at the commercial register allegedly does not permit making changes in the register without completing the proceedings on the previous application, that the registration court decides on applications in a prescribed order and that the file in question is located at the Prague High Court, so it is not possible to verify the facts stated in the application using documents in the file.

The Constitutional Court states that the cited reasons can not be used to explain the delays in the proceedings in question. Reference to the computer equipment of the registration court or to a file located temporarily at another court are not reasons which can be interpreted otherwise than as technical and organizational problems, which, however, in this regard, may not be used to the detriment of the petitioner (a private law corporation), which justifiably expects from the court protection of its rights in a reasonable time under Art. 38 para. 2 of the Charter and Art. 6 para. 1 of the Convention. The fact that the Regional Court is waiting to make its decision in the adjudicated matter for the decision of the Prague High Court in an appeal in another matter could be accepted, but only under the condition that the Regional Court decided to do so in a due procedural manner foreseen by law. If proceedings are being conducted before the Prague High Court which are to resolve a question which may be significant for the registration court’s decision, the proceedings should be interrupted ?§ 109 para. 2 let. c) of the Civil Procedure Code?. However, if the Regional Court is waiting to handle a petition only because it does not have the relevant file at its disposal and is thus waiting for the High Court’s decisions for technical reasons and not reasons on the merits, this procedure is fundamentally unjustified, and unconstitutional in its final results. The registration court can take steps such as requesting the return of the relevant file for a short period for purposes of handling the petition in question, or making copies of those parts of it which it needs for its decision. In other words, the registration court must do all that it can so that the petitioner’s fundamental rights are not violated as a result of the technical and organizational problems of state bodies.

For the sake of completeness, the Constitutional Court emphasizes that in proceedings on this constitutional complaint it is not addressing the registration court’s manner of decision making, i.e. whether statutory conditions for the entry in the commercial register have been met or not. The unconstitutionality of the Hradec Králové Regional Court’s procedure lies in the fact that it is not deciding in the matter and – without the relevant procedural foundation – is waiting for the High Court’s decision.

For all the cited reasons the Constitutional Court granted the constitutional complaint and forbids the Hradec Králové Regional Court to continue violating the petitioner’s rights under Art. 38 para. 2 of the Charter and Art. 6 para. 1 of the Convention and orders it to process the petitioner’s matter under file no. Rg. C 13213 without unnecessary delays.

Finally, the Constitutional Court states that it has not found grounds to independently annul the resolution of the Hradec Králové Regional Court cited in the introduction. The substance of the constitutional complaint is directed only against part (3.), under which “the submitted application will be processed only after the High Court’s decision on the appeal.” Thus, it is apparent from the nature of the matter that in this regard the resolution is not a decision, but only an “other action” by a body of state power, as the contested part does not constitute or declare any rights or obligations of the petitioner, but only states that a body of public power (i.e. the general court) will not act in the matter until a certain time. Therefore, the Constitutional Court, in a situation where the verdict of this judgment forbids the Hradec Králové Regional Court to continue in the delays in the proceedings and orders it to act in the matter without delays, denied the petition to annul the cited resolution.

Instruction: Decisions of the Constitutional Court can not be appealed.

Brno, 19 February 2002