CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mai 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF4D55FE3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; line-height:15pt }   Communicated on 24 May 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 36446/17 Ján SARKOCY against Slovakia lodged on 4 May 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns proceedings for payment of lawyer´s fees. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the observations of the plaintiff to his appeal and also the observations of the plaintiff to his appeal on points of law were not communicated to him. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 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, was the principle of adversarial proceedings respected as regards the fact that the observation of the plaintiff dated 10 October 2012 to the applicant´s appeal and also the observation of the plaintiff dated 28 May 2014 to the applicant´s appeal on points of law were not communicated to the applicant and that, as a result, he had no possibility of reacting to it (see Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic , no. 61811/00, § 65, ECHR   2005-V; Hudáková and Others v. Slovakia , no. 23083/05, §§ 28-31, 27 April 2010; Juričić v. Croatia , no. 58222/09, §§ 72-78, 26 July 2011; Trančíková v. Slovakia , no. 17127/12, §§ 37-47, 13 January 2015; Čičmanec v. Slovakia , no. 65302/11, § 59-65, 28 June 2016; and contrast Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (dec.), no.   35090/07, §§   88 ‑ 91, 4 October 2011)?   The parties are requested to submit all documents in support of their replies.