CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 15 janvier 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 15 January 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 32342/15 Adriana BALAZS against Romania lodged on 26 June 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 19 May 2014 the Gherla District Court convicted the applicant for fraud and ordered her to pay pecuniary damages to the civil party. On 2   December 2014 the applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Cluj Court of Appeal. The application concerns the failure of the Gherla District Court to give any reasons for the manner in which the civil action had been decided and the way in which the damages had been calculated. In addition, the Cluj Court of Appeal failed to give any reply to the applicant’s arguments in this respect. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   In particular, were the legal grounds for the decision adopted on the civil action within the criminal proceedings, in the judgments of the Gherla District Court of 19 May 2014 and of the Cluj Court of Appeal of 2   December 2014, sufficiently developed (see Gheorghe v. Romania , no.   19215/04, §§ 48-51, 15 March 2007)?   2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint against the failure of the Gherla District Court to give sufficient reasons in its judgment of 19 May 2014, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?