VAŠA SLOVENSKO, S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA
Doc ref: 40925/17 • ECHR ID: 001-216545
Document date: February 22, 2022
- Inbound citations: 2
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 1
- •
- Outbound citations: 4
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 40925/17 VAÅ A SLOVENSKO, S.R.O. against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 February 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President, Alena Poláčková, Davor Derenčinović, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 40925/17) against Slovakia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 29 May 2017 by VAŠA Slovensko, s.r.o., a limited-liability company established in 1996, having its seat in Bratislava (“the applicant company”), and being represented by Mr R. Oleksik , a lawyer practising in Bratislava;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Bálintová;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. In its application of 29 May 2017 the applicant company complained under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention about an inspection of its business premisses that had been carried out by the Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic and about what it considered to be an arbitrary refusal of a remedy by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court in that respect.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
2. The Court notes that on 9 July 2020 the application was communicated to the Government who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, informing the Court that on 3 January 2018 the applicant company had been stuck out of the register of companies since it had been acquired by another private company, Edenred Slovakia, s.r.o. (“Edenred”). Thus, it had ceased legally to exist. The Government pointed out that the applicant company’s lawyer had failed to inform the Court of this fact and that Edenred had expressed no wish to continue the proceedings.
3. On 1 March 2021 the applicant company’s lawyer replied to the Government’s observations attaching a statement of 22 February 2021 by the company Edenred to the effect that it was a universal legal successor of the applicant company and that as such it had a legal interest in pursuing the applicant company’s application before the Court.
4. The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted either where they were known from the outset or where new significant developments occurred during the proceedings. Incomplete and therefore misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 67, ECHR 2014; and Čaluk and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), [Committee], nos. 3927/15 and 63 others, §§ 18-19, 25 September 2018).
Loading citations...5. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the applicant company ceased legally to exist on 3 January 2018, some seven months after the introduction of the application on 29 May 2017. It did not inform the Court of this circumstance despite being specifically advised of the duty to keep the Court informed of all relevant new developments in the Registry’s letter of 29 June 2017 and the fact that the case was communicated on 9 July 2020. In this context, the Court finds it relevant that the applicant company was legally represented. It was only in response to the Government’s observations that the representative acknowledged the dissolution of the applicant company but he included no explanation for the failure to respect the requirements of Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court.
6. Having regard to the fact that the information withheld concerned the very core of the application, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application. Lawyers must understand that, having due regard to the Court’s duty to examine allegations of human rights violations, they must show a high level of professional prudence and meaningful cooperation with the Court by sparing it the introduction of unmeritorious complaints and, both before proceedings have been instituted and thereafter, they must inquire diligently into all the details of the case, meticulously abide by all the relevant rules of procedure and must urge their clients to do the same. Otherwise, the wilful or negligent misuse of the Court’s resources may undermine the credibility of lawyers’ work in the eyes of the Court and even, if it occurs systematically, may result in particular individual lawyers being banned from representing applicants under Rule 36 § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court (see Stevančević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 67618/09, § 29, 10 January 2017).
7. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the present application constitutes an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) in fine of the Convention. It must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 17 March 2022.
Liv Tigerstedt Péter Paczolay Deputy Registrar President