CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mars 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 5 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 29333/14 I.M. RESAN S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 29 March 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a civil dispute between the applicant company and another company. The applicant company was successful at first and second instances, and received an official confirmation from the Court of Appeal that the two judgments had become final since the other party had not challenged them with an appeal on points of law. Several months later the applicant learned that the other party had lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court and that the latter had examined it, quashed the previous judgments and adopted a new solution in the case favourable to the other party. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the proceedings were unfair, because it had not been aware of the proceedings before the Supreme Court and could not organise its defence and because the Supreme Court upheld an appeal on points of law lodged outside the time-limit provided for by law. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, §§   61-62, ECHR   1999 ‑ VII; mutatis mutandis Ziliberberg v. Moldova , no. 61821/00, §§   37 ‑ 42, 1 February 2005; Godorozea v. Moldova , no. 17023/05, §   32, 6   October 2009)?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   3.     The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.