CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 5 November 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 23553/15 Lucian BORGOVAN against Romania lodged on 6 May 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of civil proceedings and in particular a breach of the principle of legal certainty. In a final decision of 4   September 2014 (available to the parties on 24 November 2014), the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s action seeking to compel the Suceava Bar Association to register him on the list of lawyers. The applicant was a legal counsellor at the time and claimed the right to become a lawyer without having to sit an exam, in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 § 2 (b) of the Legal Profession Act (Law no.   51/1995). He complains that similar actions brought by other legal counsellors were admitted by the courts. At the same time, the High Court of Cassation and Justice decided similar cases both in favour and against the legal counsellors. QUESTION 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? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty respected since the Bucharest Court of Appeal decided the applicant’s case without taking into consideration the existence of conflicting rulings on the same subject (see, notably, Ştefan and Ştef v. Romania , nos. 24428/03 and 26977/03, 27   January 2009)?