CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 avril 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 April 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 4607/24 GENERALI ČESKÁ POJIŠŤOVNA A.S. against Slovakia lodged on 2 February 2024 communicated on 11 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the constitutional proceedings initiated by a private party who had previously lost a civil dispute against the applicant company before the ordinary courts (file   no.   III.   ÚS   184/2023). The civil litigation concerned a road-traffic accident where the applicant company was the insurer of one of its participants. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant company complains that it was not served the constitutional complaint and was unable to participate in the constitutional proceedings, eventually leading to the quashing of a final judgment in its favour, which had a direct impact on its civil rights and obligations. In addition, it complains that in those proceedings, the Constitutional Court took into account evidence that the applicant company had no opportunity to comment on before the ordinary courts (an expert report originating from criminal proceedings concerning the accident).     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did it have an opportunity to participate effectively, in line with the principles of equality of arms, adversarial proceedings and legal certainty, in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court (see, mutatis mutandis ,   López Guió v. Slovakia , no. 10280/12, §§   101-   13, 3 June 2014;   Frisancho Perea v. Slovakia , no. 383/13, §§   71 ‑ 78, 21   July 2015;   Hudáková and Others v. Slovakia , no. 23083/05, §§   25-27, 27   April 2010; and   Čičmanec v. Slovakia , no. 65302/11, §§ 56-65, 28   June 2016)?