Applicant (AP2): Mr. President, distinguished judges of the court, I will address the applicant's complaint concerning the failure to personally serve on him the strike-off decisions issued by the District Court of Ljubljana against the company in which he held a minority share. Admittedly, the applicant had no actual or constructive knowledge of the strike-off proceedings. Yet it is precisely the striking-off decision that resulted in the applicant's personal and unlimited liability for the company's debts. The chamber overlooked this procedural aspect by holding that the matter was absorbed in the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol Number 1. However, there are strong arguments warranting a separate examination under the head of Article 6 or Article 13, and ultimately a different conclusion on the merits. The underlying facts are clear-cut. It is undisputed that both the decision to initiate the striking-off proceedings and the final decision's strike-off have been served at the company's premises rather than on the applicant in person as a liable shareholder. It is likewise undisputed that no service occurred since the company had ceased to operate at its premises years before, and accordingly, both decisions were returned to the District Court of Ljubljana. Therefore, the applicant was not made aware of the strike-off proceedings. It is our contention that Slovenia fell short of its positive obligation under Article 6 to ensure that litigants are fully informed and can take part in the proceedings in which their civil rights are at stake. It is precisely the lack of personal service that deprived the applicant of the opportunity to challenge the decision to initiate the proceedings and to appeal against the strike-off decision within the prescribed time limit. Now, it is true that the two decisions were entered into the Court Registry's notice board and that the final decision on strike-off was also published on the official gazette. But this is no substitute for personal service. As pointed out by this Court, the general concept of a fair trial presupposes that the person against whom proceedings have been initiated should be informed of that fact. If court documents are not served in person, then an applicant might be prevented from defending himself in the proceedings. In this respect, the chamber upheld the government's argument that a pragmatic approach to the method of service was necessary because it would otherwise be excessively time-consuming or even impossible to attempt to serve the documents on individual members of the companies. We cannot see the relevance of this argument, which is in any way belied by the facts of the case. First, the applicant's name and address were mentioned in the Court Register and in a number of documents of the proceedings, including the decision to initiate strike-off proceedings and the actual strike-off decision. Second, the applicant had been summoned in person in the framework of the proceedings instituted by the Railway of Slovenia. And this was just two months before the service of the decision to initiate the strike-off proceedings. These two circumstances utterly prove that personal service was not excessively time-consuming, let alone impossible, as the government contend. Like in the case of Diaz-Ochoa versus Spain of 2006, the authorities were aware of the applicant's address, and yet they failed to personally serve on him the relevant decisions. As a matter of fact, the focus system was based on the assumption that service on the company's premises would have sufficed to ensure knowledge of the proceedings. However, this Court already held that service affected by means of a public notice affixed on the gate of a company's premises does not measure up to Article VI. And I refer to SC Carbochim and others versus Romania of 2017 as a recent example. On a different note, it cannot be said that the applicant had constructive knowledge of the strike-off proceedings by means of publication of the relevant decisions on the Court Registry's notice board and or the official gazette. In Zavotnik versus Slovenia of 2015, this Court has already voiced criticism concerning this matter of service. It held that, and I quote, it would be unrealistic to expect the applicant to regularly consult the notice board of a court or to gain access to every issue of the official gazette, end of quote. The case of Mr. Lekic is an all fours with these presidents. The formalistic implementation of the manner of service under the FOCA undermine the very essence of his right to access to a court. This is further compounded by the fact that the District Court of Ljubljana failed to examine whether the applicant had been duly summoned and to adjourn the examination of the case as required by the settled case law of this court. Against this background, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the erasure was carried out automatically and without prior notification and that the applicant was not given the opportunity to challenge it before the competent domestic authorities. Mr. President, these are the precise words of the Grand Chamber in the Kudic judgment. History repeats itself. Slovenia had to deal with over 25,000 former Yugoslav citizens, and they simply erased them from the register of permanent residence. They had to deal with some 24,000 allegedly inactive companies, and they simply erased them from the company's register. Well, it seems that when dealing with complex situations, Slovenia tends to resort to massive erasures, obliterating any and all procedural guarantees. In the instant case, it was a lack of personal service that allowed the striking off proceedings to be conducted so swiftly and that ultimately triggered the personal and unlimited liability of the applicant. Moreover, in the subsequent enforcement proceedings, he cannot raise any objection relating to the striking off owing to the final character of the decision, a decision about which he had been quite simply kept in the dark. This plainly offsets the basic requirements of Article 6 and 13 of the convention, making the applicant's right of access to a court merely illusory. Thank you, Mr. President.