The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in a case concerning restrictions imposed by the state as part of measures against the spread of the COVID-19 disease. The case concerned restrictions relating to the operation of the operations, respectively the ski resort, as part of the measures adopted in the Slovak Republic against the spread of the disease COVID-19. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) of the Slovak Republic informs about this on its website.
- The European Court of Human Rights assessed Slovakia’s pandemic restrictions for entrepreneurs.
- The plaintiffs alleged a violation of property rights and an unreasonable individual economic burden.
- The company Denim Retail hid the received state aid, the court rejected the complaint as abuse.
- Part of Panta Rhei’s complaint was dismissed by the court for missing the filing deadline.
- The court recognized broad state discretion and no evidence of discrimination or undue burden.
The ECtHR ruled in a joint decision on the complaints filed by Denim Retail, Panta Rhei and the Baba-Pezinok Ski Club. The applicants complained of a violation of their property rights and claimed that they suffered damage as a result of the measures in question and that these measures were illegal and arbitrary, because they were not associated with any procedural safeguards, they were excluded from judicial review and imposed a disproportionate individual burden on them. The applicants also alleged a violation of the right of access to a court (Article 6 of the Convention), the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 of the Convention) and a violation of the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 of the Convention).
In relation to Denim Retail’s complaint, the ECtHR accepted the government’s argument that the complaining company had not submitted true and complete information. “Specifically, she did not inform the court that she was the recipient of financial assistance from public sources, intended for entrepreneurs to overcome difficulties in connection with the restrictions to which she had to submit. In response to the government’s arguments, the company did not deny receiving this aid, but claimed that it did not consider them relevant to the matter,” the MS approached. The ECtHR rejected this complaint due to abuse of the right to individual complaint.
In addition, the ECtHR rejected the part of Panta Rhei’s complaint concerning the measures applied in the period before 26 January 2021, namely due to non-compliance with the deadline for filing a complaint.
The ECtHR further assessed the arguments of the parties and recalled that the COVID-19 pandemic could have very serious consequences not only for public health, but also for society, the economy, the functioning of the state and life in general, which entails the wide discretion available to the state as to the means to be used.
“Taking into account the amount of losses and damages claimed by the complaining companies and the amount of aid received from state schemes, the ECtHR emphasized that not all business losses can be attributed exclusively to the measures applied, as they were taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, i.e. not in a standard business environment,” the ECtHR explained. The ECtHR found that the complaining companies in this case did not prove that they had suffered a disproportionate individual burden. It also recalled that the Convention does not guarantee the right of access to a court with the power to annul legislation. It therefore dismissed their objections as manifestly unfounded. Finally, the ECtHR also rejected the objections when it recognized the government’s arguments and stated that it was not proven that the complaining company was in a relevantly similar situation to other companies whose situation it referred to.
