Published on 26 September 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 34281/20
UNICOM JIV, S.R.O.
against Slovakia
lodged on 6 August 2020
communicated on 9 September 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged unfairness of proceedings concerning the payment of damages under the State Liability Act due to the quashing, by a judgment of the Constitutional Court, of a final and binding judgment in favour of the applicant company, and the alleged attendant interference with the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The quashed judgment was preliminary (medzitýmny rozsudok) in that it consisted of a judicial ruling recognising the legal basis for the applicant company’s claim but leaving the question of the amount of the claim to be paid to the applicant company for future determination. The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
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 Constitutional Court, 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, given the specific circumstances, including the fact that the extraordinary appeal lodged by the Prosecutor General against the applicant company’s judgment was previously dismissed by the Supreme Court in view of the principle of legal certainty (decision of 19 October 2018, file no. 2MCdo 1/2018):
- did the constitutional complaint constitute an ultimate element in the chain of domestic remedies at the disposal of the parties (see a contrario, SLOVDAN, spol. s r.o. v. Slovakia, (dec.), [Committee], no. 46341/17, §§ 28‑30, 12 October 2021, with further references); and
- was the Constitutional Court’s judgment compatible with the principle of legal certainty (see, mutatis mutandis, 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. Given the preliminary nature of the applicant company’s judgment, did its claim for damages amount to a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
In particular, did the applicant company have a “legitimate expectation”, within the meaning of the Court’s case-law under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, of having it enforced (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, §§ 29-31, Series A no. 332)? If so, was the interference justified in accordance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see DRAFT - OVA a.s., cited above, §§ 91-92)?