CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 novembre 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 29 November 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 14661/17 Jason Scott GERBER against Slovakia lodged on 11 February 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns, above all, the applicant’s right of access to the Constitutional Court. By the latter’s decision no. I. ÚS 370/2016 of 8   June 2016 (served on 11 August 2016), the applicant’s constitutional complaint challenging mainly the length of the proceedings on a preliminary measure concerning the custody and the applicant’s visiting rights to his children was rejected as not complying with formal requirements. The Constitutional Court considered that, in a situation where the authority form accompanying the constitutional complaint empowered an attorney office (legal person) to act on the applicant’s behalf and where the authorised representative of that attorney office had later been suspended in the exercise of her activities of attorney, the applicant should have submitted a new authority form empowering another attorney. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was deprived of access to the Constitutional Court due to an excessively formalistic and unforeseeable application of procedural rules. He asserts that, as stated in his constitutional complaint and the authority form, he was represented by an attorney office as a legal person (acting, at the time of the Constitutional Court’s decision, through a new authorised representative who was also an attorney), which complied with the Constitutional Court Act and the Advocacy Act. The applicant further complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about the excessive length of the proceedings on the preliminary measure, which also amounted to a violation of his right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention, and, under Article 13 of the Convention, about the ineffectiveness of the constitutional complaint. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, given that in his complaint to the latter the applicant mainly complained about the length of the proceedings before the ordinary courts, on account of which the Constitutional Court could have granted him financial satisfaction (see, mutatis mutandis , Mikolaj and Mikolajová v. Slovakia , no. 68561/01, §§   36 ‑ 37, 29 November 2005)?   2.     If so, did the applicant have access to the Constitutional Court, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, given that his constitutional complaint was rejected without having been examined on the merits although he was duly represented by an attorney office?   3.     Assuming that the applicant can be considered as having exhausted domestic remedies with regard to his complaint about the length of the proceedings on the preliminary measure (no. 37P/325/2013), was the length of these civil proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   4.     Did the length of the proceedings on the above preliminary measure amount, in the particular circumstances of the case, also to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Bergmann v. the Czech Republic , no. 8857/08, § 39, 27 October 2011)?