CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 mai 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sED4D4CD1 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D33C75 { width:34.89pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s95CFF514 { width:147.75pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA2F8E2C6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 21846/21 DENIM RETAIL S.R.O. against Slovakia and 2 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7   May   2026 as a Committee composed of:   Raffaele Sabato , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Alain Chablais , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicant companies listed in the appended table (“the applicant companies”), on the various dates indicated therein; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Ms   M.   Bálintová; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applicant companies are legal entities incorporated in Slovakia. The present case concerns the repercussions on their rights connected to their businesses as a result of measures taken in Slovakia in response to the spread of the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus that causes COVID-19, entailing the closure of and restrictions on the operation of those businesses. 2.     The applicant companies complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they had sustained damage as a result of the measures in question and that such measures had been unlawful and arbitrary in that they had been issued ultra vires , they had been associated with no procedural guarantees, they had been exempt from any judicial review, and they had placed an   excessive individual burden upon the applicant companies. 3.     The applicant companies Lyžiarsky Klub Baba - Pezinok and Panta   Rhei, s.r.o. also alleged a violation of their rights under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention in that they had had no access to a court in relation to the contested measures and had been denied an effective remedy in relation to their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 4.     The applicant company Panta Rhei, s.r.o. futher complained of a   violation of its rights under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT    Joinder of the applications 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.    Article 35 § 3 (a) and (b) of the Convention 6.     As pointed out by the Government in their objection under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, the applicant company DENIM retail s.r.o. made no reference to any financial support received from public funds in respect of losses incurred as a result of the contested measures. The Government further asserted that, in respect of the period under consideration, that company had in fact received 140,820.51 euros (EUR) from a scheme (“the first-aid scheme”) operated by the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family and EUR 139,973.44 from a scheme (“the rent-support scheme”) operated under the authority of the Ministry of Economy (see Scheffer and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos. 16627/21 and 47 others, §§ 8 and 9, 6   December 2025). The applicant company did not contest these facts and argued that it had been unaware of the relevance of any payments from the first-aid scheme or the rent-support scheme in respect of which such payment would not have been paid directly to it, but rather to its landlord. 7.     In Scheffer and Others (ibid., § 46), which concerned similar matters as those in the present case, the Court noted that financial aid awarded to applicants from public funds was directly linked to the questions of their victim status, any possible significant disadvantage suffered by them, and to the proportionality of the measures complained of under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court held that information about such aid concerned the very core of the case and should have been submitted to the Court in the applicant companies’ applications. The Court’s findings in Scheffer and Others followed a previous decision in another similar case, Toromag, s.r.o. and Others v. Slovakia ((dec.) [Committee], nos. 41217/20 and 4 others, §§   11   and 12, 28 June 2022), in which the Court found specifically that the applicants’ failure to inform the Court of financial aid awarded to them from public funds, along with other matters, amounted to deliberate withholding of significant information and documents, constituting a ground for rejecting their application as an abuse of the right of application. 8.     The situation in respect of DENIM retail s.r.o. is essentially the same, considering that (i) the applicant company was represented by the same lawyer as the applicant companies in Toromag, s.r.o. and Others and Scheffer and Others (both cited above) and (ii) it advanced the same arguments as those advanced in Scheffer and Others in respect of its failure to inform the Court of the payments received – arguments which were examined and rejected in Scheffer and Others (cited above, §§   42, 43 and 50). 9.     Application no. 21846/21 must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention as an abuse of the right of individual application. 10.     The Government raised a similar objection in relation to the application lodged by Panta Rhei, s.r.o., to which they added a further objection under Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention. The Court finds it unnecessary to rule on these objections, as the application is in any event inadmissible on the grounds set out below.    Article 35 § 1 of the Convention 11.     The parties agreed that there had been no effective remedies in relation to the situation brought about by the contested measures (see Scheffer and Others , cited above, § 63). The application lodged by Panta Rhei, s.r.o. was introduced on 26 July 2021, that is, prior to 1 February 2022, when Article   4 of Protocol No. 15 entered into force, which shortened the time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention for lodging an application from six months to four months. In respect of that application, therefore, the six-month time ‑ limit applies. 12.     In so far as Panta Rhei, s.r.o. argued that the contested situation amounted to a continuing interference with its rights, the Court notes that it originated from consecutive pieces of legislation containing various parameters (ibid., § 5). By way of a specific example, the situation significantly evolved with the entry into force on 15   October 2020 of a   legislative amendment addressing the legal status of the underlying legislation and the body issuing it (ibid., §§ 11, 15 and 17-19). The applicant company’s argument accordingly cannot be accepted ( contrast Parrillo v.   Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, §§ 109-14, ECHR 2015). 13 .     Accordingly, the part of application no. 38283/21 concerning measures applicable to Panta Rhei, s.r.o. in the period prior to 26   January   2021 has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention. 14.     For the sake of completeness, the Court notes that the application lodged by Lyžiarsky Klub Baba - Pezinok was introduced on 1 July 2021 and was directed against a statutory regime which has been in place since 1   January 2021.    Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 thereto 15.     The applicant company Lyžiarsky Klub Baba - Pezinok essentially complained under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 thereto that the instruments providing for the contested measures had been unlawful and disproportionate in that the body issuing them (the Public Health Service Authority) had not had the authority to order them, the measures had not been subjected to any safeguards, in particular, judicial review, and they had placed an   excessive individual burden upon it. The applicant company Panta Rhei, s.r.o. raised similar complaints in relation to the period starting on 26   January 2021. 16.     As regards the power of the Public Health Service Authority to order the contested measures and the matter of judicial and other procedural safeguards, in Scheffer and Others (cited above, §§ 78-83 and 96), the Court examined and rejected essentially the same arguments. Nothing has been presented in the instant case or established otherwise to enable it to reach a   different conclusion. 17.     In addition, in Scheffer and Others (ibid., § 84), the Court found that the contested measures had undoubtedly served the general interest of protecting public health and this finding directly applies in the present case. 18.     On the matter of proportionality, the Court noted in that case that the COVID-19 pandemic had been liable to have very serious consequences, not just for public health, but also for society, the economy, the functioning of the State and life in general, which entailed a wide margin of appreciation available to the State with regard to the means to be employed and to the question of whether the consequences were justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued (ibid., § 85, with further references). It further held that the measures in issue could not be considered to have been addressed exclusively in respect of a certain group of individuals or entities (ibid., § 86) and that, to the extent that the applicant companies’ allegedly excessive individual burden had consisted in damage allegedly sustained, there was no a priori requirement for compensation to ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Furthermore, where the respondent State had opted for providing a   compensation scheme, that was to be taken into account in the overall assessment of the proportionality of the contested measure (ibid., §§ 87-88). 19.     The general considerations above directly apply in the present case. As for the specific circumstances of the present applications, the applicant company Lyžiarsky Klub Baba - Pezinok, which is a private company established for the sole purpose of seasonal operation of ski lifts, argued in its application that because of the contested measures, it had been unable to   carry out its operations in the period between 1 January and 18 April 2021 and that that had resulted in a loss of income amounting to, as estimated in relation to the figures of the previous years, approximately EUR 150,000. At the same time, it submitted that it had incurred expenditures in connection with the maintenance of its ski slopes in addition to financial credit on which it had been obliged to pay interest. In its observations in reply to those of the Government, the applicant company provided further details in respect of the amount of its claim, which brought the estimated total loss of income to EUR   178,466. 20.     It has not been contested that the applicant company Lyžiarsky Klub Baba - Pezinok received approximately EUR 5,100 from the first-aid scheme, approximately EUR   2,000 from the rent-support scheme, and more than EUR   23,000 from another scheme which supported tourism. 21.     The applicant company Panta Rhei, s.r.o. is a private limited liability company operating 68 bookstores and 15 traditional-style cafes associated with the bookstores. In its application, it specified that in 2021 its bookstores and cafes had lost profits in the amount of approximately EUR   3,436,000 and EUR 921,000 respectively. In its observations in reply to those of the Government, it relied on an expert report indicating that its business profits in respect of the bookstores and cafes had to some extent been compensated for by higher profits from online sales. In 2021 its calculated overall lost profits had amounted to EUR 3,513,000, which, however, had not taken into account the financial support received. In that regard, it acknowledged that it had received approximately EUR   2,175,000 (from the first-aid scheme and the rent-support scheme) in 2021. 22.     In contrast to the applicant companies’ submissions above, even assuming their losses were properly substantiated, they cannot be attributed exclusively to the contested measures. Moreover, the applicant companies’ alleged losses should have been assessed over a longer period than the reference period alone, and the support they applied for and received was in fact substantial (see Scheffer and Others , cited above, §§ 90, 91 and 95). 23.     Having regard to the temporal scope of the application lodged by Panta Rhei, s.r.o. (see paragraph 13 above), the cited figures concern the year   2021. The situation continued along similar lines into 2022, but this does not have any substantial impact on the Court’s assessment. 24.     As regards procedural safeguards, nothing has been shown to suggest that the claims for financial assistance were unregulated by law or exempt from judicial protection (see Scheffer and Others , cited above, § 96). 25.     In sum, as in Scheffer and Others (ibid., § 97), the applicant companies in the present case have not shown that they suffered an excessive individual burden for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 26.     In addition to the considerations above, the Court notes that Article 13 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as requiring a   remedy against the state of domestic law (ibid., § 98, with further references). 27.     The complaint made in the present case under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is essentially no more than a restatement of a part of the complaints made under Article 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto. In addition to what has already been noted, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not in itself guarantee any particular content for (civil) “rights and obligations” in the Contracting States ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto (see Gustafsson v.   Sweden , 25 April 1996, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑II) and neither does it guarantee a   right of access to a court with power to   invalidate or override a law enacted by the legislature (see Jenisová v.   Slovakia (dec.), no.   58764/00, 12   September 2006, with further references). 28.     Therefore, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights of the applicant companies Lyžiarsky Klub Baba - Pezinok and Panta Rhei, s.r.o. guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 thereto. 29.     This part of the applications is accordingly manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3   (a) and   4 of the Convention.     Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 30.     The applicant company Panta Rhei, s.r.o. also alleged a violation of its rights under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 in that, while certain other businesses (for example, newsstands, mobile telecommunications operators’ stores and hardware stores) had been exempted from the scope of the contested measures, it had not been exempted and no acceptable justification had been given. There had been no explanation why fast-food establishments selling take-away hot beverages had been exempted while traditional-style cafes had not. In addition, supermarkets had in fact been selling not only foodstuffs, but also books, whereas bookstores had had to close. Even assuming that, as argued by the Government, the sale of books in supermarkets had not been allowed, neither had it been banned. 31.     In their observations, the Government submitted that the contested restrictions had not extended to take-away food or online sales with delivery or pick-up points. In that regard, the applicant company Panta Rhei, s.r.o. had been treated just the same as any other business in the same domain. There had been no exceptions for “supermarkets”, but rather for “food stores”, and the exception had only applied to foodstuffs, not to other goods, such as books. 32.     The Court finds that, in so far as the applicant company argued that it should be compared with businesses in other domains, it did not show that it had been in a relevantly similar situation for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention. As regards the sale of books and cafe services, it did not show that it had been treated differently from other businesses that would normally sell books and provide cafe services. 33.     It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§ 3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 May 2026.     Liv Tigerstedt   Raffaele Sabato   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant company name, year of incorporation, registered seat Represented by 1. 21846/21 DENIM retail s.r.o. v.   Slovakia 22/04/2021 DENIM retail s.r.o. 2015 Bratislava B. FRIDRICH Lawyer Bratislava 2. 34483/21 Lyžiarsky Klub Baba - Pezinok v.   Slovakia 01/07/2021 LYŽIARSKY KLUB BABA - PEZINOK 1993 Pezinok R. SKOVAJSA Lawyer Bratislava 3. 38283/21 Panta Rhei, s.r.o. v.   Slovakia 26/07/2021 Panta Rhei, s.r.o. 1993 Veľký Meder PRO iURE - advokátska kancelária, s.r.o. Law firm Bratislava