CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 septembre 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 } Communicated on 11 September 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 25220/15 Štefan JÓBA against Slovakia lodged on 18 May 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s right of access to a court. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court rejected his constitutional complaint on the grounds that he did not provide a copy of the challenged judgment of the appellate court, which however he did not have at his disposal at the time of lodging the complaint. In the present case, the applicant filed a blanket constitutional complaint within the two-month time limit running from the public pronouncement of the judgment (4 September 2014), stating that he would submit a copy as soon as he received it. The written copy of that judgment was served on him two months later (4 November 2014). Nevertheless, before he complemented it, his constitutional complaint was rejected. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have effective access to the Constitutional Court in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the fact that the written copy of the judgment he intended to challenge was served on him the last day of the two-month time limit set for lodging the constitutional complaint (running from the public pronouncement of the impugned judgment)?