CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 janvier 2022

.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 31 January 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 48147/10 Lilia ROȘCA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 12 August 2010 communicated on 12 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged profound divergence in the case law of the Supreme Court of Justice. In a series of virtually identical cases, various formations within that court adopted decisions which interpreted in one way the law, but in an opposite way in the applicant’s case. The applicant had informed that court of its own previous case-law on the matter, but the court did not comment on that or expressly set out a new interpretation of the law. In subsequent decisions the Supreme Court of Justice again interpreted the law in a manner consistent with its previous case-law and opposite to the solution in the applicant’s case. The applicant complains about divergent case law of the Supreme Court of Justice in her case as compared to its own case-law, which resulted in a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, do “profound and long-standing differences” exist in the case-law of the Supreme Court of Justice concerning the subject at issue in the present case, does the domestic law provide for a machinery capable of overcoming these inconsistencies, has that machinery been applied and to what effect (see Nejdet   Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey   ([GC], no. 13279/05, §§   49-58, 20   October 2011 )?