CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 avril 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 25 April 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 63024/16 Vilorie IONESCU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 25 October 2016 communicated on 6 April 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure of the domestic courts to properly summon the applicant to hearings in civil proceedings in which he was defendant. The applicant alleges that the domestic courts sent summonses to an address which was not valid and that, therefore, he was prevented from defending himself in proceedings in which a bank successfully claimed from him a large amount of money. Because of the above alleged unfairness, the applicant claims to have been a victim of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been deprived of his right of access to court for the determination of his “civil rights and obligations”, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, as far as he submits that he never received valid summons for the hearings in civil proceedings at issue ( Russu v.   Moldova , no. 7413/05, §§ 23-28, 13 November 2008, Godorozea v.   Moldova , no. 17023/05, §§ 28-33, 6 October 2009, and Rassohin v.   Moldova , no. 11373/05, §§ 32-35, 18 October 2011) ?