CEDH · CASELAW;STATEMENTOFFACTS;ENG — 31 janvier 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s719C48CE { width:279.15pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid }   18 January 2011     FOURTH SECTION Application no. 17935/08 by Marina ROBULET against Moldova lodged on 26 February 2008   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Marina Robulet, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1968 and lives in Ungheni. She is represented before the Court by Mr R.   Zadoinov, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 17 September 2003 G. authorised I. to sell his truck and issued him a power of attorney. On 15 September 2004 I. sold the truck to a specialised shop, which sold the truck to the applicant on the same date. On 12 October 2004 the notary who had authenticated the power of attorney asked the relevant authority to block any re-registration of the truck in view of the revocation of the power of attorney issued by G. In November 2004 G. lodged a civil court action against the applicant seeking the annulment of the truck’s sale to the applicant. The applicant also lodged a counter-claim seeking recognition of her ownership of the truck. On 7 December 2005 the Rîşcani District Court found in the applicant’s favour. It ordered G. to pay 3,624 Moldovan lei in court fees, representing 3% of the value of the court action. G. appealed, but did not pay the court fees (75% of the sum which had been paid before the court of first instance). The applicant noted that G. had failed to pay the court fees in full and had missed the time-limit for lodging his appeal. On 24 May 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld G.’s appeal and annulled the sale of the truck to the applicant. The court did not deal with the applicant’s arguments concerning G.’s failure to pay the court fees and to submit his appeal within the time-limit established by law. The applicant appealed, arguing inter alia that G. had failed to pay court fees and had lodged his appeal outside the legal time-limit. On 7 November 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice examined the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The hearing was scheduled for 10 a.m. and the applicant had to travel 120 km from her own town to appear before the court. However, she had to wait in the corridor, together with over 100   other persons, until 5 p.m. when her case was taken by the court. She was tired and hungry and there were no suitable conditions for waiting for such a long time in the corridor. The court decided that another hearing was necessary and scheduled it for 14 November 2007. On that date, after a very brief hearing during which the applicant was not allowed to read her appeal since it had already been submitted in writing, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The court did not respond to her submissions concerning G.’s failure to pay court fees and his late appeal. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the Chişinău Court of Appeal did not examine her case at a public hearing.   2.     She also complains, under the same provision, that she was not offered proper conditions for preparing her case at the Supreme Court of Justice.   3.     She also complains, under the same provision, that the higher courts failed to give sufficient reasons for their judgments.   4.     The applicant complains, under the same provision, that the higher courts failed to deal with all her claims and arguments.   5.     She also complains, under the same provision, that the proceedings in her case had been excessively long.   6.     She finally complains under Article 13 of the Convention that she had no effective remedies in respect of her complaint under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Has there been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, did the courts deal with the applicant’s most important arguments such as G.’s failure to pay court fees or his late appeal? Were the applicant and her lawyer able to submit her case properly to the Supreme Court of Justice?