Religion – Weltanschauung – Recht [ RWR ]

The applicant, Suverénní řád Maltézských rytířů – České velkopřevorství, is an ecclesiastical unit of the Roman Catholic Church with legal personality. In 1945, some of its immovable property and land was the subject of several confiscation notices (konfiskační vyhlášky) issued under Presidential Decree no. 12/1945, which provided for immediate confiscation, without compensation, of agricultural property owned by people or companies/corporations who had intentionally served the German war machine for fascist or Nazi purposes. In April 1948 the applicant’s property was further subjected to the expropriation procedure under Law no. 142/1947.

From 1 January 2013 the Church Property Settlement Act (Law no. 428/2012) enabled restitution of property or parts of property that had originally belonged to certain churches, which had been unlawfully confiscated by the communist regime. The law applied to property owned by the State but not to property owned by persons governed by private law. Churches also had standing under the Act to bring court proceedings for the restitution of property it had originally owned that had been transferred to private persons in breach of a blocking provision in section 29 of the Land Ownership Act. However, property confiscated from churches on the basis of Presidential Decrees nos. 12/1945 and 108/1945 were excluded from restitution under the Act.

The case concerns restitution proceedings lodged by the applicant in 2013 and instituted under the Church Property Settlement Act for 506,784 sq. m of land. The applicant argued that the land had been confiscated under Law no. 142/1947 and that a private farmer had acquired it in breach of the blocking provision, meaning that the applicant, as the original owner of the church property, could seek restitution under the Church Property Settlement Act.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) thereto, the ecclesiastical unit complains that the national courts interpreted domestic law in a way that was contrary to the principle of fairness and did not take into account previous judgments of the Constitutional Court in analogous cases.

• Violation of Article 6 § 1

Press release ECHR 205 (2025) 11.09.2025