CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 9 July 2020 Published on 27/07/2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 40925/17 VAŠA SLOVENSKO, S.R.O. against Slovakia lodged on 29 May 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an inspection carried out in the applicant company’s premises by the Slovak Competition Authority. During the inspection the applicant company’s computers and its employees’ email communication were searched and their content copied. Several months later, administrative proceedings were opened against the applicant company for infringement of competition rules, which led to a fine of more than 500,000 EUR imposed on it on 11 February 2016 by the first-instance administrative authority. In the meantime, the applicant company filed an administrative action for protection against an illegal interference of the administrative authority, seeking to review the scope and the conduct of the inspection and to prevent the Competition Authority from using the copied material. The Supreme Court decided to discontinue those proceedings, holding that the same questions were to be examined, upon the applicant company’s appeal against the decision of 11 February 2016, by the superior administrative authority. The applicant company’s constitutional appeal was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded (III. ÚS 676/2016). Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant company mainly complains that the inspection was carried out as a “fishing expedition”, without a prior judicial authorisation, and that the subsequent judicial review of its lawfulness proved ineffective. Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant company complains that the Supreme Court deviated from its established practice when it refused to protect the company against the allegedly unlawful inspection, that the material obtained during the inspection served as a basis for the decision of 11 February 2016 and that the proceedings on the infringement of competition rules, which have not yet finished, could not offer it the protection sought. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to respect for home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic law and practice afford the applicant company adequate and effective safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness, namely an efficient judicial review of the lawfulness of, and justification for, the inspection and the subsequent measures taken by the Slovak Competition Authority (see   Smirnov v. Russia , no. 71362/01, 7 June 2007; DELTA PEKÁRNY a.s. v. the Czech Republic , no. 97/11, 2 October 2014)?   2.     Did the applicant company have access to a court for the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant company have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article   13?