CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 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 9 May 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 19308/17 CARIERA IVANOS S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 3 March 2017 communicated on 21 April 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns examination of a party’s request for interim measures, without the applicant company being able to respond, and the resulting immediate suspension of its commercial activity for an undefined period pending the court proceedings. In 1998 the applicant company’s predecessor received a piece of land (a former quarry) from the Government for rehabilitation and use as agricultural land. In 2002 the local administration found that the land was not being rehabilitated but used for mining. It ordered the return of that land, asking the Government to annul its decision (this was not done). In 2012 the applicant company obtained a license to extract minerals from the same piece of land and concluded a contract with the Ministry of Environment detailing the conditions of this commercial activity. In 2016 the local administration sued the applicant company and asked the courts to order interim measures in the form of discontinuing the applicant company’s mineral extraction activity. This was rejected. The local administration appealed and the applicant company was allegedly not given an opportunity to comment on the appeal. The parties were summoned to the court hearing (the local administration was present and amended its appeal at the hearing), but the summons was sent to an incorrect address and the applicant company was unaware of the hearing. The applicant company complains of a breach of Article 6 of the Convention since it was not given any opportunity to comment on the other party’s appeal, nor to argue its position before the court. It also complains of an alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention since, in the absence of any claim that the 2012 contract and license were unlawful, its activity was immediately suspended and its access to the site blocked. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable in the present case? If so, has there been a violation of that provision? In particular, was the principle of adversarial proceedings and “equality of arms” observed and was the applicant company given a meaningful opportunity to comment on the other party’s appeal and/or to present its case during the only hearing before the Court of Appeal, at which the other party was present, but not the applicant company? ( Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, § 146, 19   September 2017) 2.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the applicant company subjected to “an individual and excessive burden”, within the meaning of that provision, as a result of the immediate discontinuation of its activity pending the outcome of the proceedings? ( Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, §§ 107 et seq. , 11   December 2018)