You are here:

Key facts of the case:

The Complainant, a legal person doing business in the field of insurance, had concluded an insurance contract with the accountable, which bound that person to paying the agreed insurance premiums. Contrary to the insurance contract, the accountable failed to pay the agreed premiums for the service duly provided by the Complainant, forcing the Complainant to turn to the Arbitration Court in compliance with the arbitration clause included in the contract. The Arbitration Court issued a verdict that ordered the accountable to pay owed insurance premiums. The executor asked the district court to issue authorisation to launch distraint procedures, attaching the Complainant’s complaint and the distraint title to the motion. The district court asked the executor to present the credit contract the Complainant had concluded with the accountable and the terms of the insurance contract. The district court established the facts of the case anew, ignoring the case file of the Arbitration Court. Based on gathered evidence, it refused to schedule a hearing and adjudicated without the Complainant’s participation, rejecting the executor’s motion for the commencement of distraint procedures. The Complainant appealed to the regional court, which upheld the district court’s decision. Eventually, the Complainant appealed to the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, which turned down the appeal. The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic examined whether the conduct of the district court, which established the facts of the case anew without summoning the parties, conformed to Article 48 Paragraph 2 of the Slovak Constitution that guarantees everyone the right to have his case tried in his presence and to deliver his opinion on all pieces of evidence.