Communicated on 3 April 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 2749/17
REDQUEST LIMITED
against Slovakia
lodged on 4 January 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant company mainly complains under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, alleging a violation of its right to a fair trial, in particular the access to a court and equality of arms, and the protection of property.
According to the applicant, there were no circumstances of a substantial and compelling character to justify a departure from the principle that, where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be further called into question.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the fact that a final and binding judgment in the applicant company’s favour was quashed by the Supreme Court following an extraordinary appeal on points of law lodged by the Prosecutor General, upon a petition by the defendant, did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, but not only, were its rights of access to a court and the principles of legal certainty and equality of arms respected (see DRAFT - OVA a.s. v. Slovakia, no. 72493/10, §§ 81‑84, 9 June 2015, COMPCAR, s.r.o. v. Slovakia, no. 25132/13, § 69 and §§ 73-74, 9 June 2015 and PSMA, spol. s r.o. v. Slovakia, no. 42533/11, §§ 75-79, 9 June 2015)?
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, resulting from the fact that the final and binding judgment was quashed by the Supreme Court? If so, was that interference justified in accordance with that provision (see DRAFT - OVA a.s. v. Slovakia, no. 72493/10, §§ 91-92, 9 June 2015)?
The parties are requested to submit all documents in support of their replies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy