CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 février 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 9 February 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 6107/17 Javier GARCÍA ESPINAR against Spain lodged on 12 January 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s right of access to a court and to judicial remedies within the framework of proceedings aimed at the execution of a judgment. The proceedings were not suspended while the applicant’s request for free legal aid was being examined; as a consequence, the applicant claims that he was not able to appeal the decisions rendered within the proceedings owing to the time-limit had expired when free legal aid was granted. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have effective access to a court and to judicial remedies in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention having regard to the fact that the High Court of Justice of Madrid rejected the request for suspension of the proceedings while the applicant’s request for free legal aid was being examined, and that free legal aid was granted afterwards?   2.     Were the decisions of the High Court of Justice rejecting the suspension of the proceedings (decisions of 4 November 2014, 7 January 2015 and 27 April 2015) sufficiently reasoned, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?