CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 19 October 2020 Published on 9 November 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 55617/17 BTS HOLDING, A.S. V LIKVIDÁCII against Slovakia lodged on 28 July 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the non-enforcement of an international arbitration award, issued in the applicant company’s favour against the State. Invoking Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, the applicant company asserts that by allowing the State’s objections against the enforcement of the arbitration award and by discontinuing the enforcement proceedings, the domestic courts violated its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, as well as the principle of legal certainty. It argues that the decisions were arbitrary, that the courts failed to respond to its main arguments and reached manifestly erroneous conclusions, which rendered the interference with its property rights unlawful, illegitimate and disproportionate.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol no. 1? In particular, does the failure of the respondent State to enforce the arbitration award at issue amount to a violation of the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions (see, mutatis mutandis , Kin-Stib and Majkić v. Serbia , no. 12312/05, §§ 83-85, 20   April 2010; Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, §§ 54-62, ECHR   1999 II; Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece , 9   December 1994, §§ 68-75, Series A no. 301 B) and/or its right of access to court (see, also, Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00, §§ 34-42, ECHR 2002-III)? In particular, did the domestic courts give convincing reasons when allowing the State’s objections against the enforcement of the arbitration award in the present case?   2.     Did the applicant company have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?