Communicated on 12 July 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 19356/14
Andrea PUŠKÁROVÁ
against Slovakia
lodged on 28 February 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Andrea Puškárová, is a Slovak national who was born in 1977 and lives in Turzovka. She is represented before the Court by Mr M. Rojček, a lawyer practising in Žilina.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicant claimed damages in connection with a traffic accident in which she had sustained bodily injuries. The action was directed against an individual who it was claimed was responsible for the accident and identified his insurer as a third party supporting him.
4. The action was granted four times by the Čadca District Court, but the first three of its judgments were quashed and the fourth one was modified by the Žilina Regional Court following appeals by the insurer.
5. In the modifying judgment, on 16 March 2011, the Regional Court allowed a minor part of the applicant’s claim and dismissed the remainder.
It observed that the claim was uncontested in principle but contested in its scope, in particular in so far as the applicant sought an exceptional twenty-fold increase in the amount of damages normally due under the applicable statute, referring to “particularly agonising suffering and pain” that she had sustained. On the facts, it found that the claim had been established in its ordinary scope, but not as to the extraordinary increase.
6. On 25 March 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Regional Court had applied incorrect criteria in determining her claim for an extraordinary increase of the amount of damages, that its judgment lacked proper reasoning, and that it was not convincing.
7. As the applicant would later learn from the Supreme Court’s judgment, the insurer filed observations in reply to her appeal. Although she has never seen it, from the summary thereof in a subsequent decision of the Constitutional Court (see below) it is apparent that, in those observations, the insurer “disputed the applicant’s interpretation and proposed application of [the relevant legal rules], in particular in view of the expert evidence available, and her assessment of the ‘persuasiveness’ of the Regional Court’s judgment”.
8. On 28 November 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, having established no errors of procedure and having concurred with the Regional Court’s legal assessment of the disputed points of substantive law.
9. On 12 March 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court. She directed it against the Regional Court and the Supreme Court and, in so far as relevant, sought the quashing of their respective judgments of the 16 March 2011 and 28 November 2012. In that respect, she complained that the insurer’s observations in reply to her appeal on points of law had not been communicated to her, as a result of which she had been deprived of the possibility of responding, all this being in breach of her right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalents.
10. On 11 September 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. As to the specific part of the complaint in question, it examined the submissions that the applicant and the insurer had previously made in the proceedings and concluded that neither her appeal on points of law nor the insurer’s observations in reply to it contained any elements of fact or law that had not been debated by them before. For that reason, the Constitutional Court found that the non-communication to the applicant of the impugned observations could not have resulted, “at least in terms of substance”, in a violation of her rights under the provisions invoked.
The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 21 October 2013 and was not amenable to appeal.
B. Relevant domestic practice
11. Relevant domestic practice in respect of communication for comment of the observations of one party to the proceedings in response to any legal remedy to which the opposing party has recourse has been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Trančíková v. Slovakia (no. 17127/12, § 23, 13 January 2015).
COMPLAINTS
12. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the observations filed by the insurer in response to her appeal on points of law were not communicated to her and that, as a result, she was deprived of the possibility of reacting to them.
QUESTIONS 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, was the principle of adversarial proceedings respected as regards the fact that the insurer’s observations in reply to the applicant’s appeal on points of law were not communicated to her and her argument that, as a result, she had no possibility of reacting to them (see Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 61811/00, § 65, ECHR 2005-V; Hudáková and Others v. Slovakia, no. 23083/05, §§ 28-31, 27 April 2010; Juričić v. Croatia, no. 58222/09, §§ 72-78, 26 July 2011; Trančíková v. Slovakia, no. 17127/12, §§ 37-47, 13 January 2015; Čičmanec v. Slovakia, no. 65302/11, § 59-65, 28 June 2016; and contrast Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 35090/07, §§ 88-91, 4 October 2011)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy