CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2018

.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 17 January 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 70054/11 RED UNION FENOSA S.A. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 21 October 2011 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. The applicant company alleges that the revision proceedings in question were in fact an appeal in disguise and that the other party in the proceedings obtained a rehearing of the case contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regulating the revision procedure. The case raises issues concerning respect for res judicata and the principle of legal certainty similar to those in Popov v. Moldova (no. 2) , no. 19960/04, 6 December 2005. The applicant company alleges that there has been a violation of its rights under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was there a breach of the applicant company’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as a result of the re-opening of its case by the Chişinău Court of Appeal on 21   April 2011 (see Popov v. Moldova (no. 2) , no. 19960/04, 6 December 2005)?