CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 août 2021

.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 } Published on 20 September 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 47133/20 LEBASINOT 2MIL2 S.L. against Spain lodged on 15 October 2020 communicated on 31 August 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the domestic courts’ alleged failure to summon the applicant company, in the framework of civil foreclosure proceedings after which its property was sold at an auction to a third party. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant company have adequate access to a court under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention having regard to the fact that the applicant company was not personally served with the initial judicial decisions and documents rendered during the foreclosure proceedings (in particular, the initial complaint ( demanda ejecutiva ) and the subsequent judicial payment order ( requerimiento de pago ))?