CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 14 February 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 48719/19 Vasile-Ion DRAGOMIR against Romania lodged on 11 September 2019 communicated on 28 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns access to court in civil proceedings in which the applicant’s civil responsibility for a bankrupt company’s debt was engaged in his capacity as former administrator of that company (decision no.   672 of 22   November 2018 of the Bacău County Court). The appeal lodged by the applicant against the County Court’s decision was declared out of time. The Bacău Court of Appeal calculated the time-limit for lodging the appeal from the date when that decision was published in the Bulletin of Insolvency Proceedings and not from the date when it was sent to the applicant by post (final decision no. 100 of 5 April 2019 of the Bacău Court of Appeal).   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     In particular, considering the manner in which the decision no. 672 of 22 November 2018 of the Bacău County Court was made available, both via the postal services and through the Bulletin of Insolvency Proceedings, did the applicant have a fair opportunity to have knowledge of that decision and to appeal against it within the time-limits set by law (see, mutatis mutandis , Zavodnik v. Slovenia , no. 53723/13, §§ 69-74 and 81, 21 May 2015)?   3.     Did the despatching of the decision of 22 November 2018 of the Bacău County Court through the postal services constitute notification, for the purpose of the calculation of the time-limit for the appeal?