CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 avril 2019

.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 } .sF4D55FE3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; line-height:15pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 3 April 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 35361/17 František TÓTH against Slovakia lodged on 9 May 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, alleging a violation of his right to a fair trial, in particular the access to a court and the protection of property. He complains that 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 called into question further. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the fact that a final and binding judgment in the applicant’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 have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, but not only, were his 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’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as a result of 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.