CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2023

.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 27 March 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 26267/22 SIP NEPREMIČNINE D.O.O. against Slovenia lodged on 27 May 2022 communicated on 10 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings about a sale contract on real estate concluded in November 2014 by the applicant company and the Kolosej Kinematografi company. The latter company, which was insolvent at the time, sold the real estate to the applicant company for EUR   15,000,000 plus VAT. On 3 December 2014 the bank Nova Ljubljanska Banka (NLB bank) lodged an action with the Ljubljana District Court against both companies to nullify the sale contract and erase the land register entry on the applicant company’s ownership of the real estate. The case was allocated to judge K. On 10 July 2018 the Ledava Investicije company lodged a similar action with the Ljubljana District Court against both companies. The case was allocated to judge V. On 4 October 2018 judge V decided to merge the two civil proceedings initiated by the NLB bank in 2014 and the Ledava Investicije company in 2018 and allocated the merged case to her. On 27 August 2019 the Ljubljana District Court, by judge V, upheld the actions and nullified the sale contract and ordered to erase the land register entry on the applicant company’s ownership on the real estate. The Ljubljana Higher Court in the relevant part dismissed the applicant company’s appeal. The applicant company was unsuccessful before the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that judge V was biased and decided to merge the cases into one and allocate it to herself contrary to the relevant legal framework. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court (after the civil proceedings had been merged and allocated to judge V) violate the applicant company’s right to be heard by a tribunal established by law as guaranteed by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v.   Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, § 213, 1 December 2020, and Miracle Europe   Kft v. Hungary , no. 57774/13, § 58, 12 January 2016)? Was that court an independent and impartial tribunal as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?