Communicated on 10 May 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 21998/14 Alen a LISPUCHOVÁ and Peter LISPUCH against Slovakia lodged on 24 February 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms Alen a Lispuchová and Mr Peter Lispuch , are Slovak nationals and former spouses who were born in 1965 and 1951 and live in Pezinok and Búc a respectively.

They are represented before the Court by Mr M. Uhaľ , a lawyer practising in Zvolen .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

The case began on 17 March 2006, when Ms Lispuchová first brought an action against two individuals. The action was later modified so as ultimately to be directed by both of the applicants against three other individuals and aimed at obtaining a declaratory ruling to the effect that a contractual instrument of 12 April 2002 was void and did not constitute a directly enforceable title.

The instrument had been concluded by Mr Lispuch and two of the defendants and concerned the settlement of differences related to certain shareholders ’ rights. Enforcement proceedings were being conducted against Mr Lispuch on the basis of that document.

The action was granted by courts at two levels of jurisdiction on 7 May and 9 December 2010 in respect of two of the defendants and dismissed in relation to the third. As an ordinary appeal ( odvolanie ) was unavailable, the matter was resolved under a final and binding judgment on 24 February 2011. In consequence, the enforcement proceedings were discontinued.

Nevertheless, one of the losing defendants asked the Prosecutor General to exercise his discretionary power to challenge the judgments of 7 May and 9 December 2010 by way of an extraordinary appeal on points of law ( mimoriadne dovolanie ) to the Supreme Court.

On 19 April 2012 the Prosecutor General agreed to the application and lodged an appeal. He noted that the contested instrument had been the object of enforcement in a separate set of proceedings and argued that any challenges had therefore to be made and examined exclusively within the framework of those proceedings.

On 26 February 2013 the Supreme Court allowed the extraordinary appeal by quashing the relevant part of the contested judgments and remitting the matter to the first-instance court for re-examination. It observed that the enforcement of the instrument of 12 April 2002 was based on the premise that, in its legal effects, it amounted to an arbitral award. The validity of such awards was to be challenged by means of a special action and not, as in the present case, by a general action aimed at obtaining a declaratory ruling. In addition, the Supreme Court concurred with the Prosecutor General that challenges to the enforceability of the instrument had to be made and examined within the framework of enforcement proceedings and not as part of a general action for a declaratory ruling.

On 11 June 2013 the applicants challenged the Supreme Court ’ s decision by way of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution. They alleged, inter alia , that there had been a violation of their right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on the grounds that the quashing of the final and binding judgment in their favour had been arbitrary and contrary to the principles of legal certainty and equality of arms.

On 10 September 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint as manifestly ill-founded. Citing extensively from the Supreme Court ’ s reasoning, it found no arbitrariness in it that raised issues of constitutional importance. The Constitutional Court ’ s decision was served on the applicants on 21 November 2013 and was not amenable to appeal.

No information has been made available as to the further course and outcome, if any, of the proceedings in the applicants ’ action or in the proceedings for enforcement of the instrument of 12 April 2002.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice and European texts

The relevant domestic law and practice and European texts have been summarised for example in the Court ’ s judgment in the case of DRAFT - OV A a.s . v. Slovaki a (no. 72493/10, §§ 39-56 and 58-61, 9 June 2015).

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the quashing of the final and binding judgment in their favour was contrary to the principles of legal certainty and equality of arms.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given that the Supreme Court quashed a final and binding judgment in their favour following an extraordinary appeal on points of law by the Prosecutor General, prompted by an application by one of the defendants in their case?

In particular, were the principles of legal certainty and equality of arms respected (see, for example, DRAFT - OV A a.s . v. Slovakia , no. 72493/10, § 86, 9 June 2015)?