Unlawful interim measures and state liability: the Constitutional Court rejected formalism

The case concerned an interim measure for protection against domestic violence by which the complainant was temporarily removed from the common home and restricted in his contact with his family. The measure was later annulled by the Court of Appeal as unlawful, inter alia because the parties to the proceedings had been incorrectly identified. The complainant subsequently sought compensation from the State for non-pecuniary damage under Act No 82/1998 Coll. on liability for damage caused in the exercise of official authority. The general courts rejected his claim for the most part, holding that the applicant for interim measures, not the State, was liable for the damage.

The Constitutional Court found this approach unacceptably formalistic. It stressed that the procedure for interim measures in domestic violence cases had its own specific features and could not be mechanically measured by the general rules of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where an interim measure has been issued by a court and subsequently annulled as unlawful, the State’s liability cannot be automatically excluded. The Constitutional Court considers such a procedure to be contrary to Article 36(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to compensation for damage caused by an unlawful decision.

The Constitutional Court therefore annulled the contested decisions in the parts in question and returned the case to the municipal courts for further proceedings. The message is quite clear: the protection of victims of domestic violence is legitimate and important, but even in these sensitive proceedings the State cannot absolve itself of responsibility for unlawful interference with individual rights by mere procedural shortcuts.