CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 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 21 March 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 32935/13 Livia DAMIAN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 20 April 2013 communicated on 2 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged unfairness of civil proceedings. In 2006 the applicant bought a building and registered her property title with the cadastre. One year later the same building was sold by the State to a political party. The applicant challenged the latter transaction in courts and argued that the State had no right to sell the building which was her property. However, during the proceedings, in 2008, the title of one of the previous owners of the building was cancelled by way of a late revision request which led to the reversal of a final court judgment of 2005. The result of those revision proceedings, in which the applicant was not involved, served as a ground for cancelling the applicant’s title and upholding the title of the political party. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   If so, was the interference in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and was it necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (see Megadat.com SRL v.   Moldova , no. 21151/04, ECHR 2008)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.