CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 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 19 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 70038/14 BUSINESS-INVESTIȚII PENTRU TOȚI S.A. and LUX EDEM CONSULTING S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 1 October 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure by the State authorities responsible for the enforcement of court judgments to have enforced two judgments obliging two private companies to pay money to the applicant companies. The applicant companies initiated court proceedings in accordance with Law No. 87 and were partly successful at first and second instances. However, the Supreme Court of Justice reversed those judgments and declared the applicants’ actions inadmissible for being time-barred. In so doing, the Supreme Court accepted the Government’s argument about the Statute of Limitations which the latter made for the first time in the proceedings before it. However, the applicant companies were not given a chance to be present during the proceedings before the Supreme Court and to comment on that argument. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 that the proceedings were unfair because the Supreme Court based its ruling on an argument which they did not have an opportunity to comment on. Moreover, the applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 and 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non ‑ enforcement of the two judgments favourable to them. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( Godorozea v. Moldova , no. 17023/05, § 32, 6 October 2009)?