National Follow Up Of (when relevant): See the General Measures in addition to the individual compensation under the Report of the Government of the Czech Republicon the execution of judgment in case no. 1643/06 – Suda v. the Czech Republic“II. GENERAL MEASURES As already acknowledged by the Court in § 15 of the judgment, Section 220k (1) was deleted from the Commercial Code as of 1 July 2008 by new Act no. 125/2008 (Companies and Cooperatives Transformations Act) which does not contain any similar provision providing for arbitrators‘ jurisdiction established by a contract between third parties in comparable situations. It follows that at present, occurrence of violation of the Convention similar to the present case is no longer possible. Therefore, no further systemic measures to prevent analogous violations in the future are required.”
ECtHR jurisprudence: On the right of access to court that extends to arbitration: Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, July 8, 1986, § 201, Series A no.102; on the conditions to waive the right to court in favour of arbitration (the waiver should be free, lawful, and equivocal): R. v. Switzerland, no. 10881/84, decision of the Commission of 4 March 1987, Decisions and Reports (DR) no 51; Osmo Suovaniemi and others v. Finland (dec.), No 31737/96, 23 February 1999; Transado - Transportes Fluviais do Sado, SA v. Portugal (dec.), no.35943 / 02, December 16, 2003; more on the conditions of a waiver: Deweer v. Belgium, February 27, 1980, § 49, Series A no. 35; on necessary guarantees to be observed in mandatory arbitration: Bramelid and Malmström v. Sweden, nos. 8588/79 and 8589/79, Commission decision of 12 October 1989, DR no. 29; on references to the national rules on company law: Kohlhofer and Minarik v. Czech Republic, nos. 2921/03, 28464/04 and 5344 / 05, 15 October 2009; and in particular the relationship between stakeholders and its impact on market share: Kind v. Germany (dec.), No 44324/98, 30 March 2000.