8 mai 2011

Towards a client-friendly judicial deadline policy, and fair trial in corporate law, TATRY Poprad, 7261/06

7 judges chamber of the European Court of Human Rights unanimously decided to correct the deadline policy of the Slovak Constitutional Court in case TATRY Poprad s.r.o. v Slovakia, 7261/06. The mistake of that Constitutional Court was that:

* first, it held that the company had to appeal to the Appeals on Points of Law Chamber of the Supreme Court before coming to the Constitutional Court with a complaint against the Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Court;
* second, after the declaration of inadmissibility by the Appeals on Points of Law Chamber, the Constitutional Court refused to accept the action, since the company had missed the judicial deadline to be calculated from the first judgment of the Supreme Court (§ 44).

However what is interesting even more for me is the fact that Strasbourg declared applicability of the right to court to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court (§ 37). For instance, in impeachment judgment Paksas v Lithuania of 06/01/2011 the interpretation was contrary.

The essence of the TATRY Poprad s.r.o. was that this company completed its construction works about 2 months after the date agreed in the contract, and according to the terms of contract lost 20 % of the agreed price. The construction company argued that its director K didn't have the standing to sign the contract:

- on 26/04/1996 the Supervisory Board approved him as a director;
- on 12/04/1996 the General Meeting took an unknown decision on his appointment (positive according to the Supreme Court, and negative according to the company;
- on 22/04/1996 he signed the contract as a "director";
- on 28/05/1996 his name as the name of "director" was communicated to the Register of Comapanies.

Aucun commentaire: