CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2023

.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 } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 April 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 13730/15 Tatiana CEACHIR against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 13 March 2015 communicated on 28 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the right to a fair hearing, in particular an alleged violation of the right to adversarial proceedings and equality of arms as a result of having been unable to access a document of major importance for the outcome of the proceedings and to comment on it or challenge it in court and as a result of the reversal of the burden of proof provided for by law. The applicant owns a house and land around it for which she pays tax. Although the law allowed the re-evaluation of real estate only once every three years, the tax office calculated the tax payable by her differently every year, with sometimes wide discrepancies, based on data from the Cadastre agency. Her court action aimed at contesting a new evaluation which had been made a year after the previous evaluation, and ultimately at establishing the correct manner of calculating her tax, was dismissed as unfounded. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that she was never allowed to see the calculation of the Cadastre agency which had been the basis for fixing the tax payable by her, despite her express request to obtain it. As she did not have access to the document setting out this calculation, she was also unable to challenge it in court. Moreover, contrary to the procedural rule that, in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof fell on the defendant, in the present case it was her who had to prove her submissions.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have a real opportunity to fully present her case, notably by obtaining from State agencies evidence important for its outcome and by being able to effectively challenge such evidence in court? Did the courts allow a de facto reversal of the statutory burden of proof ( Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, § 146, 19 September 2017)?