CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; 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 25 August 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 38730/18 Corneliu TATARU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 2 August 2018 communicated on 8 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the quashing of a final judgment adopted in civil proceedings as a result of allegedly abusive revision proceedings. In 2005 and 2006 the applicant became the owner of several assets which had been purchased by third parties from a State-owned enterprise (E.) in 2003. In 2008 a new shareholder of E. sued unsuccessfully the applicant in court seeking annulment of the sales agreements of 2005 and 2006. In 2011 and 2015 the same shareholder lodged two revision requests which were dismissed by the Supreme Court of Justice. A third revision request was admitted by the Supreme Court of Justice in 2018 on the basis of a criminal conviction of E.’s former director. The applicant complains that the revision proceedings in 2017 were in fact an appeal in disguise and that the rehearing of the case could take place due to the Supreme Court of Justice’s abusive interpretation of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regulating the revision procedure. The applicant alleges a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a breach of the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the re-opening of its case by the Supreme Court of Justice on 21 February 2018 (see Popov v. Moldova (no. 2) , no.   19960/04, §   45, 6 December 2005)?   2.     In respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, does it disclose a violation of the Convention, as claimed by the applicant?