CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8BB6D734 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 5 December 2020 Published on 21 December 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 41217/20 TOROMAG, S.R.O. against Slovakia and 4 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern alleged unlawfulness of a series of measures taken by the Public Health Authority ( Úrad verejného zdravotníctva ) of Slovakia in the context of prevention of the spreading of the Covid-19 virus. The applicants are the owners of business (fitness centres) which were closed by virtue of the aforementioned measures from March until June   2020. They allege having so incurred pecuniary damage and lost future income as well as clientele. The applications raise issues under Article   1   of   Protocol No. 1.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In view of all the circumstances, including - but not limited to - the nature of the contested measures and the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence on the judicial review of the so-called general permits (see e.g. the Constitutional Court’s decision I. US 354/08), have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, did it fulfil the requirements of lawfulness under that Article? Among other aspects, was it accompanied by procedural safeguards inherent in that provision (see Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria , no. 49429/99, §§ 133-134, ECHR 2005 ‑ XII (extracts), with further references)?     APPENDIX   No. Application no. Applicant Registered seat 1 41217/20 Toromag, s.r.o. Colný sklad   34 Bystrička   038 04 Slovakia 2 41253/20 Štúdio pohybu BUBEMA, s.r.o. Hlinská   27 Žilina   010 01 Slovakia 3 41263/20 Retsus s.r.o. Družstevná   665/6 Čachtice   916 21 Slovakia 4 41271/20 Mikuláš Bado Ortáše 74 044 44 Ploské Slovakia 5 49716/20 Peter Marcina Okružná 1423/18 020 01 Púchov Slovakia