Published on 9 October 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 15008/22 Branislav ADAMÄŒO against Slovakia lodged on 17 March 2022 communicated on 18 September 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a situation in which, while being detained, the applicant deposited an appeal in a civil-law matter with the prison authorities on the last day of the period for appealing. However the prison authorities posted it only the next day, as a result of which the appeal was rejected as belated. The applicant then asked that the appeal be nevertheless examined, by way of a request for leave to appeal out of time.

As in his earlier application before the Court (see Adamčo v. Slovakia (No. 2) [Committee], no. 20877/19, 2 June 2022), the request was dismissed on the grounds that, having been aware of the internal prison rules on handling correspondence, the applicant had failed to show that he had been unable to appeal in time. In rejecting his subsequent constitutional complaint (case no. I. ÚS 460/210), unlike in the earlier case, the Constitutional Court discarded the said argument and held that seeking leave to appeal out of time was not a remedy to be used in an instance when the appellant considered that the appeal had in fact been lodged in time.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal out of time violated his right of access to court and that by rejecting his constitutional complaint on new grounds raised by the Constitutional Court of its own initiative it breached his right to adversarial proceedings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case?

In view of their subject matter and potential impact on any of his “civil rights and obligations”, did the proceedings on the applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time involve a determination of such rights and obligations so as to attract the protection of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ratione materiae ?

2. Having regard to the Constitutional Court’s position that an application for leave to appeal out of time was not an appropriate avenue for the pursuit of his rights in the specific circumstances of the applicant’s case

- has he exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

- what other remedy(ies) (if any) was(were) available and to be exhausted for the purposes of that provision?

- was the application introduced within the time-limit laid down in the said provision?

3. Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

4. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

In particular, was the principle of adversarial proceedings respected before the Constitutional Court ( see Vegotex International S.A. v. Belgium [GC], no. 49812/09, § 135, 3 November 2022, with further references)?