CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mars 2025

.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 November 2023 Published on 22 April 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 21662/23 Robert FICO against Slovakia lodged on 25 May 2023 communicated on 6 November 2023 and 31 March 2025   The Subject matter of the case and Questions to the parties is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     As regards the complaints under Articles 8 and 18 of the Convention, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to all the circumstances, including but not limited to (i) the scope of these complaints (contrast, Zoltán Varga   v.   Slovakia , nos. 58361/12 and 2 others, §§ 117-20, 20   July   2021). (ii)   the findings of the Nitra Regional Office of the Public Prosecution Service in the decision of 16 Novembre 2021, and (iii) the admission by the Government in their observations before the Court that the interference with the applicant’s rights had not been “in accordance with the law”, has a claim for damages under sections 3(1)(d) and 9 of the State Liability Act (Law   no.   514/2003 Coll., as amended) been an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of these complaints?   2.     Having regard to all the circumstances, including but not limited to (i)   the findings of the Nitra Regional Office of the Public Prosecution Service in the decision of 16 November 2021, (ii) any possible further domestic remedies, (iii) the admission by the Government in their observations before the Court that the interference with the applicant’s rights had not been “in   accordance with the law”, (iv) the lack of any observations and claims by the applicant in the proceedings before the Court, and (v) Rule 44C § 1 of the Rules of Court, is there a basis for striking the application out of the Court’s list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (b) and/or (c) of the Convention? Having regard all the circumstances, including but not limited to the admission by the Government in their observations before the Court that the interference with the applicant’s rights had not been “in accordance with the law”, the Court is at the parties’ disposal with a view to exploring the possibilities of securing a friendly settlement of the matter pursuant to Article   39 of the Convention.