CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mai 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 June 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 1441/15 AVICOLA VULCANESTI S.A. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 15 December 2014 communicated on 18 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged breach of the principle of “equality of arms”. The applicant company was successful in claiming damages from another company (G.). G. appealed and noted that it would give reasons for the appeal when the reasoned judgment would become available. The court did not send to the applicant company any such reasoned appeal. It reversed the lower court’s judgment and cited G.’s detailed arguments from its appeal. Thereafter the applicant company obtained a copy of the case-file and, after having examined it, discovered G.’s reasoned appeal, made on the same date when the court adopted its judgment, and containing arguments which had been quoted in the court’s judgment. The applicant company complains of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the principle of “equality of arms”) because it was not given an opportunity to acquaint itself and comment on the opposing party’s arguments in its appeal.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? 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? ( Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no.   35289/11, § 146, 19   September 2017)