CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 2 July 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 9205/19 LOGOS TREND d.o.o. against Slovenia lodged on 13 February 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the procedure for recognition of foreign arbitral awards. The Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant company against the Supreme Court’s decision as inadmissible for non-exhaustion of legal remedies. The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the aforementioned Constitutional Court’s decision and the proceedings leading thereto. In particular, relying on relevant domestic law provisions, the applicant company submits that it had properly exhausted all available legal remedies before lodging a constitutional complaint, but that the Constitutional Court rejected it without indicating which remedy it had allegedly failed to exhaust. It argues that the Constitutional Court’s rejection decision, which deprived it of an examination of its case on the merits, was therefore insufficiently reasoned, manifestly erroneous and arbitrary. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention as regards the examination of its constitutional complaint (see Dulaurans v. France , no. 34553/97, § 33, 21   March 2000, and Gheorghe v. Romania , no. 19215/04, § 43, 15 March 2007)? In particular, did the Constitutional Court sufficiently explain why the applicant company’s constitutional complaint was rejected? Was the Constitutional Court’s position in that respect consistent with its previous case-law? The parties are invited to submit copies of the relevant Constitutional Court’s decisions.   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Constitutional Court’s decision to reject the applicant company’s constitutional complaint for non-exhaustion of legal remedies (see Dulaurans , cited above, §§ 34 and 38, and Mik ulová v. Slovakia , no.   64001/00, §§ 56-58, 6 December 2005)?