CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 août 2022

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 12 September 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 57845/21 Romans FINBERGS against Latvia lodged on 17 November 2021 communicated on 25 August 2022   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was involved in civil proceedings whereby he sought to remove an attachment on immovable property owned by him (“the   applicant’s claim”), which was used as a collateral for a loan taken by a third party. Within the same proceedings, the creditor sought to recover the debt from the applicant by selling the applicant’s property by way of an auction (“the counterclaim”). To substantiate its counterclaim, the creditor submitted a report of its business account carried out by the auditors confirming the existence of the debt. This report was not made available to the applicant as the first-instance court decided to restrict access to information giving the laconic reason “document contains a trade secret”. The first-instance court granted the applicant’s claim and dismissed the counterclaim. However, the appellate court dismissed the applicant’s claim and granted the counterclaim inter alia by referring to the report which had not been made available to the applicant. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law arguing inter alia that the debt could not be recovered from him as it had not been established that the third party was not able to settle its debt. By a final decision of 18 May 2021, the Senate of the Supreme Court summarily rejected the applicant’s appeal. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings did not comply with the requirements of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms on account of the fact that he had not been given access to the report and that he had not been given the possibility to comment prior to the first-instance court which took the decision to restrict access. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that the domestic courts did not rightly assess the evidence as regards financial documentation, agreements and letters of those involved. He also complains that the Senate of the Supreme Court did not sufficiently motivate its decision by refusing to consider whether the third party was able to settle its debt.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, including, in particular, the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings ( Avotiņš v. Latvia [GC], no. 17502/07, § 119, 23 May 2016; Vorotņikova v. Latvia , no. 68188/13, §§ 21-22, 4 February 2021; and Kress v. France [GC], no. 39594/98, § 72, ECHR 2001 ‑ VI)?   2.     Did the Senate of the Supreme Court provide adequate and sufficient reasoning, in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, for summarily rejecting the applicant’s appeal on points of law taking into account the proceedings conducted before the lower courts ( Ruiz Torija v.   Spain , 9 December 1994, §§ 29-30, Series A no. 303 ‑ A; Donadzé v. Georgia , no. 74644/01, § 35, 7 March 2006; Kemp and Others v.   Luxembourg , no. 17140/05, §§ 47-48, 24 April 2008; Cihangir Yıldız v. Turkey , no. 39407/03, § 42, 17 April 2018; Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, § 179, 181, 185, 205, 6 November 2018; Orlen Lietuva Ltd. v. Lithuania , no. 45849/13, § 82, 83, 29 January 2019)?