Uni Legal, Advokátní Kancelář, S.R.O. v. the Czech Republic

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 24966/16 UNI LEGAL, ADVOKÁTNÍ KANCELÁŘ, S.R.O. against the Czech Republic

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 June 2024 as a Committee composed of:

Lado Chanturia , President , Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges ,

and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 April 2016,

Having regard to the withdrawal of Ms K. Šimáčková, the judge elected in respect of the Czech Republic, from sitting in the case (Rule 28 § 3 of the Rules of Court),

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1 The applicant company, UNI LEGAL, advokátní kancelář, s.r.o., was a limited liability company with its registered seat in Prague. The applicant company was represented before the Court by Mr T. Uličník, a lawyer practising in Prague. The application form signed by this lawyer included a power of attorney, signed by Mr D.K., in his capacity of a managing director ( jednatel ) of the applicant company.

2 The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Konůpka, of the Ministry of Justice.

3 The applicant company complained, under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, about the seizure, in the context of criminal proceedings against persons connected to the applicant company, of its electronic data, including those likely to be covered by the confidentiality of exchanges between the applicant company and its clients, and about the way in which the domestic courts, including the Constitutional Court, had decided the case.

4 On 23 November 2022 the application was communicated to the Government which submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.

5 On 31 May 2023 written submissions were received from the Czech Bar Association, which had been granted leave by the President to intervene as a third party (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2).

6 The observations submitted by the Government and the written submissions received from the third party were forwarded to the applicant company who submitted its observations in reply on 19 July 2023.

7 In a letter of 4 September 2023, the Government expressed doubts as to whether the Court communicated with a person authorised to act on behalf of the applicant company, whether Mr D.K., as the current sole managing director of the applicant company, was aware of the ongoing proceedings before the Court and whether he intended to pursue the present application. The Government relied, in particular, on the alleged continuing disputes between Mr D.K. and his former business partners, including Mr Uličník, and on the statement made by Mr D.K., after having been contacted by the Government, that he was not aware of the ongoing proceedings and of the observations submitted in the context of those proceedings. According to the Government, Mr D.K. also expressed doubts about him signing the power of attorney for Mr Uličník to submit the present application.

8 On 20 October 2023 Mr T. Uličník was requested “to submit proof that the applicant company, represented by its managing director, maintains the application”.

9 On 25 October 2023 Mr T. Uličník submitted a copy of the original application form and an excerpt from the Commercial Register regarding the applicant company. He also presented a power of attorney dated 22 August 2014, signed by Mr D.K. empowering him to represent the applicant company in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, which, according to him, was intended to prove that he had been continuously representing the applicant company in the instant case. Mr Uličník was not aware of any circumstances that would indicate his lack of authority to represent the applicant company in the proceedings before the Court.

THE LAW

10 The Court notes that, by letter of 20 October 2023, the representative of the applicant company was requested to prove whether, in view of the circumstances relied on by the Government in its letter of 4 September 2023, the applicant company maintained its application.

11 The Court considers, however, that none of the documents submitted by the applicant company’s representative demonstrates that the applicant company has a current interest in maintaining the present application. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Done in English and notified in writing on 11 July 2024.

Martina Keller Lado Chanturia Deputy Registrar President