Published on 28 August 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 21846/21
DENIM RETAIL S.R.O.
against Slovakia
lodged on 22 April 2021
communicated on 10 July 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is a private company incorporated in Slovakia, operating clothing stores. It complains of a violation of its rights by way of a government resolution (uznesenie) and a series of decrees (vyhláška) adopted by the Public Health Authority (Úrad verejného zdravotníctva – “PHA”) of Slovakia, in response to the spreading of the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus that causes COVID-19. The government resolution limited the freedom of movement of persons to defined exceptions, which however did not extend to going to clothing stores. The subsequent decrees entailed the closing of the applicant company’s stores for a total of 121 days.
Alleging that it has incurred pecuniary losses as a result, the applicant company argues that the PHA had no power to impose the limitations it did and that in view of their legal nature the underlying resolution of the Government and the PHA decrees were exempt from any type of judicial review.
To distinguish the present application before the Court from its earlier application (no. 26276/22, pending), the applicant company specifies that it pertains to what it terms the “second wave” of anti-Covid-19 measures, while application no. 26276/22 relates to those taken in the “third wave”.
The application raises issues under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 35 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In view of the applicant’s allegations and all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to the applicable statutory rules and jurisprudence, such as section 59b(1) of the Public Health Protection and Development Act (Law no. 355/2007 Coll., as amended by Law no. 286/2020 Coll.); the Constitutional Court’s decisions in cases nos. III. US 291/21 and IV. US 249/21; and its decision in case no. PL. US 8/21, have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, did it fulfil the requirements of lawfulness under that Article? Among other aspects, was it accompanied by procedural safeguards inherent in that provision (see Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, §§ 133-34, ECHR 2005 XII (extracts))?