CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 21 November 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 60484/16 IMMOTERRA INTERNATIONAL DENIA, S.L. against Spain lodged on 10 October 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure of the domestic courts to summon the applicant, a company, in the framework of civil foreclosure proceedings after which its property was sold at an auction to the plaintiff, a banking entity. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have effective access to a court and to judicial remedies in accordance with Articles 6 § 1 and/or Article 13 of the Convention having regard to the fact that the applicant was not personally served with the initial judicial decisions and documents rendered during the foreclosure proceedings (in particular, the initial complaint – demanda ejecutiva – and the subsequent judicial payment order – requerimiento de pago )?