Cases against the Czech Republic, which is not markedly different from the other contracting States to the European Convention of Human Rights, have contributed
to the development of the European Court of Human Rights’ case law both in quantity (by the substantial length of proceedings which were finally tackled by the introduction of a domestic remedy in the name of the principle of subsidiarity) and in quality, among other matters in the fields of property restitution after the fall of the Communist regime and of discrimination in education. Whilst the Strasbourg Court does not protect from conditions for restitution – potentially discriminating against those who claim return of previously owned things, namely because of the incompatibility of these complaints ratione materiae with the Convention – it verifies the proportionality of interferences with the property rights of private individuals obligated to surrender immovables acquired in the past. The Court criticized, with regard to the Czech Republic, the excessively objective character of Czech restitution legislation, which did not take into consideration the unique circumstances of the transfers of property at that time. A complaint lodged with the Court by a group of Roma children about their enrolment into Czech special schools with lower educational aims, where they were amongst many pupils of this ethnic origin, in contrast to children from the majority population, led the Court to a spectacular change of its case law. The Court ruled for the prohibition of discrimination and to extend protection against indirect discrimination when it was not possible to justify in a reasonable and objective manner the difference in treatment in the given context. Whereas the restitution process, which was a reaction to wrongs committed during the totalitarian past of the country, is now near to its end, the discriminatory characteristics of the educational system, also inherited from the past, are still waiting for their resolution after the Court’s judgment.