CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 juin 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } THIRD SECTION Application no. 2946/07 RED NORD-VEST S.A. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 21 December 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Red Nord-Vest S.A., is a company incorporated in the Republic of Moldova. It is represented before the Court by Mr S. Cozma, a lawyer practising in Cahul. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant company is a power distribution company. On an unspecified date a private party instituted civil proceedings against it on the ground that her house burned down due to a short circuit. On 26 December 2005 the Drochia Regional Court ordered the company to pay to the plaintiff compensation in the amount of some 20,000 euros. The applicant company’ appeal was dismissed by the Bălţi Court of Appeal on 28 March 2006. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court of Justice. On 7 August 2006 the applicant was informed by a letter that the hearing in its case would take place on 23 August 2006. On 22 August 2006 the applicant company received another letter from the Supreme Court of Justice informing that the previous latter contained a mistake concerning the date of the hearing and that the hearing was to take place not on 23 but on 30   August 2006. The applicant company’s representative appeared at the Supreme Court on 30 August 2006 at the time indicated in the letter just to find out that the hearing had taken place on 23 August 2006 and that the company’s appeal on points of law had been dismissed. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings were not fair because it had not been properly summoned to the hearing before the Supreme Court of Justice. QUESTION Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?