CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 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 7 February 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 11695/17 Tatiana AREHTA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 21 January 2017 communicated on 18 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal by the Court of Appeal for having been lodged out of time, whereas the applicant claims that it had been lodged within the time-limit provided for by the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant alleges that the Court of Appeal and later the Supreme Court of Justice failed to apply the provisions of the Code according to which, the date on the postal stamp is relevant when determining whether an appeal was lodged out of time and not the date of the appeal application’s arrival at the court. The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and Protocol No. 1 about the fact that the dismissal of her appeal was contrary to the law. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, § 95, 5 April 2018)?