CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 janvier 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 14 January 2000 APIS a.s. v. Slovakia (dec.) - 39754/98 Decision 13.1.2000 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Determination (civil) Proceedings concering the annulment of an interim measure: Article 6 inapplicable The applicant, a limited liability company, claimed before the City Court that it was entitled to 51% of the shares of another limited liability company and asked the court to issue an interim measure to order the defendant company not to sell the shares at stake pending the outcome of the proceedings. The City Court issued such an interim measure and rejected the defendant company’s subsequent request to annul it. However, the Supreme Court, upon the defendant company’s appeal, quashed the interim measure without hearing the parties. The applicant company’s appeal before the Constitutional Court was to no avail. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: The alleged violation occurred in the course of interlocutory proceedings relating to an interim injunction. The Supreme Court’s quashing of the interim measure was not a decision on the merits of the case, which was dealt with at the time by the City Court. Therefore the interlocutory proceedings complained of did not involve the “determination” of the applicant’s civil rights within the meaning of the Article in issue: incompatible ratione materiae .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes