CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 juin 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 12 July 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 35511/20 Maria Cristina GHERARDI MARTIRI against San Marino lodged on 5 August 2020 communicated on 23 June 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged fraud suffered by the applicant, an Italian national, in 2005 at the hands of, inter alia , a bank employee. Criminal proceedings were initiated in 2012 upon the applicant’s complaint, however five years later the inquiring judge concluded that, while the accused had been responsible for the acts at issue, the crime had become time-barred and thus the proceedings had to be discontinued. In the meantime, in 2015, the applicant lodged civil proceedings against a number of persons in connection with the fraud, including the bank. These proceedings are still pending. Meanwhile, the bank was put under compulsory liquidation and liquidation proceedings are ongoing. However, the applicant was not allowed to register her credit against the bank. She claimed that the procedure had been tampered with. Her opposition to this decision was subject to further proceedings which appear also to be pending. Thus, despite her efforts, to date the applicant’s situation in respect of her property rights has not yet been determined by the domestic courts.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, did the Respondent State conform to its positive obligation to ensure in its domestic legal system that the applicant’s property rights were sufficiently protected by law and that adequate remedies were provided whereby the applicant could vindicate her rights (see Kotov v. Russia [GC], no. 54522/00, § 112-5, 3 April 2012)?   2.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?