CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mai 2021

.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 } Published on 7 June 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 33029/17 Sandu PANUŞ against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 18 April 2017 communicated on 17 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns access to court. The domestic courts found that although police officers unlawfully applied administrative sanctions against the applicant, law no. 1545 – on which the applicant relied – did not provide for the right to obtain compensation for such acts. The applicant also relied on other legal provisions, claiming that they too gave him the right to claim compensation. However, the courts did not give any answer to that argument concerning alternative legal grounds for his claim. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention, essentially about a limitation of his right of access to a court. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right of access to a court been unacceptably limited (see Clionov v. Moldova , 13229/04, 9   October 2007)?