Communicated on 2 April 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 46564/10 Eva KOVÁROVÁ against Slovakia lodged on 3 August 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Eva Kovárová , is a S lovak national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava. She is represented before the Court by Mr P. Arendacký , a lawyer practising in Bratislava.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant claimed that a meeting of flat owners in a block of flats had been contrary to the law and that the decisions adopted at that meeting were void.

On 3 March 2008 the Bratislava V District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the defendant had ceased to exist.

On 30 May 2008 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision.

The applicant filed an appeal on points of law. She argued that she had been prevented from acting before the court of appeal within the meaning of Article 237 (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law on 7 May 2009 as being inadmissible from the procedural point of view. It held that the shortcomings to which the applicant had pointed did not fall under Article 237 (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On 17 August 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint to the Constitutional Court. She alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the proceedings leading to the above three ordinary courts ’ decisions.

On 16 December 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint. As to the alleged shortcomings in the proceedings leading to the Regional Court ’ s decision of 30 May 2008, it held that the applicant had failed to submit her complaint within the statutory time-limit of two months. It further concluded that the Supreme Court had given relevant reasons for its decision which was not arbitrary.

The decision was served on the applicant on 5 February 2010.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice is described in detail in Franek v. Slovakia , no. 14090/10 , § § 22-23 and 25-31 , 11 February 2014.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that ( i ) the courts ’ decisions on her civil claim were arbitrary, and (ii) that the Constitutional Court breached her right of access to a court in that it rejected her complaint against the Regional Court ’ s decision as being belated.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, is the way in which the Constitutional Court dealt with the applicant ’ s complaint compatible with her right of access to a court (see also Franek v. Slovakia , no. 14090/10 , 11 February 2014)?