Published on 12 June 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 34568/22 PIRO PLANET D.O.O. against Slovenia lodged on 8 July 2022 communicated on 22 May 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant company is a manufacturer and supplier of pyrotechnics and owns a shop in this connection. It complains about a ban on selling pyrotechnics, which had been introduced and then prolonged by the Governmental decrees concerning COVID-19 prevention. It was in force between 21 December 2020 and 15 January 2021. The applicant company alleges that, as a result of the ban, it suffered a significant decrease in its annual sales revenue (a decrease of 79 % in 2020, compared to the sale revenue in 2019), without being paid any compensation. Its petition for the review of the constitutionality and legality of the decrees was rejected by the Constitutional Court on 9 March 2022. That court found that the conditions for review were not fulfilled because the impugned decrees were no longer in force at the time of the examination of the petition and no particular reason warranted its examination.

The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court arbitrarily rejected its petition for the review of the constitutionality and legality of the impugned decrees and insufficiently reasoned the decision at issue, denying its right to access to court. It further complains under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that it had no reasonable chance to challenge the impugned ban and that the latter was not foreseeable, did not pursue legitimate aims and was disproportionate.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia , no. 1920/14, § 68, 19 November 2020)?

If so, did the applicant company have access to court for the determination of its civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

Furthermore, did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ( see Rola v. Slovenia , nos. 12096/14 and 39335/16, § 71, 4 June 2019)?

If so, has the interference been accompanied by sufficient procedural guarantees against arbitrariness as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pintar and Others v. Slovenia , nos. 49969/14 and 4 others, § 97, 14 September 2021)?

Furthermore, was the interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, foreseeable and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see, for instance, Vékony v. Hungary , no. 65681/13, §§ 32-36, 13 January 2015)?