Communicated on 29 November 2019

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 46341/17 SLOVDAN, SPOL. S R.O . against Slovakia lodged on 22 June 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged inability of the applicant company to participate effectively in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court concerning its property rights. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant company complains that the Constitutional Court, in the proceedings initiated by another private company (the defendant in their dispute before the lower courts), did not inform it of the ongoing proceedings, did not provide it with adequate time to submit observations on admissibility and merits of that company ’ s complaint or serve it with its additional submissions, and, eventually, quashed a final, binding and enforceable judgment which was in its favour. The applicant company claims that as a result, the Constitutional Court violated the procedural guarantees of a fair trial that it was entitled to, in particular, the principles of equality of arms, adversarial trial and legal certainty, and interfered with its property rights, previously recognised by a final judgment.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the fact that the enforceability of a final and binding judgment of the Bratislava Regional Court in its favour was suspended and that that judgment was eventually quashed by the Constitutional Court in the proceedings initiated by another party, did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant company have an opportunity to participate effectively, in accordance with the principles of equality of arms, adversarial trial and legal certainty, in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court and to influence their outcome (see, mutatis mutandis , López Guió v. Slovakia , no. 10280/12, §§ 101-113, 3 June 2014 ; Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic , no. 61811/00, §§ 59-66, ECHR 2005 ‑ V)?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant company ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meani ng of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as a result of the suspending of the enforceability of the final and binding judgment in its favour and the subsequent quashing of that judgment by the Constitutional Court (see, DRAFT - OVA a.s . v. Slovakia , no. 72493/10 , §§ 91-93, 9 June 2015 )?

If so, was that interference justified in accordance with that provision?