CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 décembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 20 December 2017     SECOND SECTION Application no. 6338/11 Sergiu CARPOV against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 13 January 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the quashing of a final judgment adopted in civil proceedings as a result of the upholding of an appeal allegedly lodged out of time. It raises issues concerning respect for res judicata and the principle of legal certainty resembling those examined in Istrate v.   Moldova , no.   53773/00, §§   44-55, 13   June 2006. The applicant complains under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention that the principle of legal certainty was breached and that he lost property as a result of that breach. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was there a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, as a result of the upholding of the appeal by the Bălți Court of Appeal on 28   September 2010 (see Istrate v.   Moldova , no.   53773/00, §§   44-55, 13   June 2006).