Headnotes:

I. Persons in an unfavourable social situation are not entitled to the provision of a social care services according to their particular wishes and demands (e.g. in terms of location, timeframe, quality, or desired characteristics of those services).

At the same time, however, the government is obliged to ensure that appropriate social care services are available to those who need them, that these services meet certain quality criteria and that the enable the persons in an unfavourable social situation to lead a dignified life. The concept of human dignity implies a positive obligation on the part of the government to ensure that these persons can live in an environment that meets their health and social needs.

II. The court may refuse to take evidence proposed by one of the parties, but only on three grounds: a) the evidence is irrelevant, i.e. has no relevant connection to the subject matter of the proceedings, b) it is not credible, i.e. it is not capable of proving the alleged fact or is not reliable, b) it is superfluous, i.e. the fact which the evidence is supposed to verify or refute has already been proven or refuted with the necessary degree of certainty. The court must also give proper reasons for its decision. Failure to comply with these requirements leads to so-called error of omitted evidence and, consequently, violation the right to a fair trial.

Thus, the court commits an error of omitted evidence if, on the one hand, it emphasises that the availability of social care services must be real and actual, not only illusory, but at the same time refuses to take evidence that might prove that the unavailability of social care services to the person in need is, in fact, only illusory.

Summary:

I. In December 2015, the complainant and the Jeseník Social Services Centre (hereinafter 'the Centre') concluded a contract for the provision of social services in a retirement home for a fixed period of one year, even though the complainant did not meet the age requirement. In concluding the contract, the Centre took into account the fact that the complainant – a person suffering from multiple sclerosis – was living in completely unsatisfactory conditions at the time. The complainant's contract was subsequently extended by means of amendments. However, in October 2017, the social service contract expired and the Centre began to demand that the complainant move out and vacate the room in which he was living under the contract. However, the complainant disagreed with the Centre’s demand and refused to vacate the room. Therefore, since October 2017, the complainant has been staying at the Centre without a social service contract, i.e. without any legal title.

In view of the situation, the Centre brought an action before the District Court in Jeseník (hereinafter 'Court of First Instance'), seeking the complainant’s eviction from the room he has been occupying without a contract since October 2017. The Court of First Instance upheld the action and ordered the complainant to vacate the room and hand it back to the Centre within two months of the judgment becoming final. The Court reasoned that although the complainant, as a disabled person, had the right to an accessible and appropriate social services, he did not meet the conditions for placement in the retirement home in question (in particular, the age condition, as well as the scope of care provided by the Centre).

The Regional Court in Ostrava (hereinafter 'Court of Appeal') upheld the first instance judgment. In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal referred to the case-law of the Constitutional Court, according to which a person in need of social services does not have a right to demand access to social services in such a form, scope and timeframe that they deem ideal (in the present case, this meant that the complainant did not have a right to demand that he would only move out of the Centre if he was provided with a separate single room in another social care facility). Moreover, the Court of Appeal noted that the Centre had repeatedly tried to assist the complainant in finding another suitable facility, but the complainant had refused to cooperate and had not yet submitted a single application for social care in another facility.

It must be, however, emphasised that the Court of Appeal did not satisfactorily address the complainant's claim that other social care facilities in the area did not in fact have vacancies and could not accept him. The Court of Appeal also refused to take the evidence proposed by the complainant to prove this claim.

The Supreme Court subsequently rejected the complainant's appeal.

In his constitutional complaint, the complainant argued that the abovementioned courts had never actually assessed whether his needs could be met in other social care facilities. The complainant and his family contacted those facilities, but were always told that they were either at full capacity or did not have a single room, which the complainant demanded. Therefore, according to the complainant, it is not sufficient for the courts to simply state that there is a "suitable" social welfare facility; it also must be considered what services and conditions of stay are offered by these facilities and whether they meet the complainant’s needs and demands.

II. The Constitutional Court recalled its judgment case no. I.ÚS 2637/17, according to which a person in an unfavourable social situation is not entitled to the provision of a social care services that meet all their demands and requirements. At the same time, however, such a person must be granted the right to have the available social care services provided in the least restrictive environment possible, i.e. to be allowed to lead a normal life. The concept of human dignity also implies a positive obligation on the part of the State to create conditions for the disabled person to live in the best possible environment for them, not only from a purely medical point of view, but also with regard to their social needs.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance complied with those constitutional requirements, as it dealt comprehensively with the complainant' situation and the actual availability of social services of the appropriate quality.

However, the opposite conclusion applies to the Court of Appeal's judgment. On the one hand, the Court of Appeal emphasised the need for the complainant to have genuine access to social services of an appropriate quality. On the other hand, however, it refused to take evidence that there was no realistic possibility of the complainant securing adequate social services within the time-limit set by the court (e.g. due to long waiting times, the unavailability of single rooms in the facility, or the preferential treatment of persons who are registered as residents in the municipality where the social services facility is located).

In this context, the Constitutional Court recalled that the court may refuse to take evidence only on three grounds, namely if the evidence is (a) irrelevant, (b) not credible, or (c) superfluous. The court must also give proper reasons for its decision. If the court fails to comply with these conditions, it commits the so-called error of omitted evidence and, consequently, a violation of the complainant's right to a fair trial.

However, the Court of Appeal did not comply with those constitutional requirements in deciding the complainant's appeal. As evidence, the complainant submitted email correspondence that his daughter had with more than twenty social service facilities located in different parts of the Czech Republic, not only in the complainant's preferred region. The social service facilities allegedly responded that they were either not equipped to care for persons with disabilities similar to the complainant's, or they had no available capacity left. However, the Regional Court did not take that evidence as it did not consider it relevant. It justified the irrelevance of the proposed evidence on the ground that the complainant has been living at the Centre without a contract (legal title) for almost three years and cannot therefore rely on the fact that other social care facilities would not be able to accept him until several months later.

However, the Constitutional Court found such reasoning to be inadequate and contradictory. The Court of Appeal did not address the actual relevance of the proposed evidence and, consequently, the actual availability of the social services that the complainant needed within the time limit set by the court (i.e. within two months of the judgment becoming final), but only whether the complainant could have secured the necessary social services if he had acted differently in the past.

It is thus the duty of the founder of the social welfare facilities (i.e. the regional government) to ensure that the complainant is provided with a social services that are appropriate to his state of health and needs; however, the complainant must, of course, offer his cooperation in achieving this result and must not be utterly passive or uncooperative in this respect, as has been the case until now.

The Constitutional Court thus annulled the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

III. Vojtěch Šimíček served as the Justice Rapporteur in the instant case. Justice Suchánek dissented.