Published on 8 June 2026
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 21659/25
Marco CARMINATI
against Slovenia
lodged on 3 July 2025
communicated on 19 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged unfair civil trial against the applicant. The applicant instituted civil proceedings against the opposing party, seeking payment of approximately 2,000,000 euros (EUR). By a judgment of 20 April 2022, the Ljubljana District Court dismissed his claim in its entirety. In the reasoning of its judgment, the court copy-pasted, including the grammatical mistakes made by the opposing party, from the opposing party’s pleadings.
The applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the extensive reproduction of the opposing party’s submissions gave rise to doubts as to the trial court’s impartiality, undermined the principle of equality of arms, and failed to meet the requirement of a reasoned judgment.
On appeal, the Ljubljana Higher Court acknowledged that such a drafting technique might be inappropriate, but found that it did not disclose a violation of the applicant’s rights. The court held that no procedural rules were violated by drafting the judgment in this manner, and that this technique, in itself, does not affect the judgment’s correctness or lawfulness. The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law and a constitutional complaint, which were dismissed by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, respectively.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the extensive literal reproduction of the opposing party’s submissions cast doubt on the impartiality of the court, infringed the principle of equality of arms, and resulted in a failure to provide a properly reasoned judgment, thereby violating his right to a fair trial. The applicant further invokes Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and alleges that the domestic court interpreted the domestic law in an arbitrary manner which resulted in the loss of his possession.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. 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, were the principle of impartiality, the principle of equality of arms and the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment respected given that the reasoning of the first-instance court’s judgment appears to be in large part a literal transcription of the opposing party’s claims?
2. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?