CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 janvier 2019

.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 8 January 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 72636/13 Vasile FURTUNĂ against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 15 November 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged scheme of defrauding the applicant with the involvement of the Bălţi Court of Appeal and the State organs responsible for the enforcement of final judgments. In 2006 the applicant obtained a final judgment against his former employer awarding him some EUR 66,000. That judgment became final and was enforced in 2007. In 2013 the other party to the proceedings challenged that judgment with an appeal and the Court of Appeal upheld it in spite of the applicant’s objections that the appeal had been lodged out of time. The enforcement of the 2006 judgment was speedily reversed and before the Supreme Court of Justice had a chance to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law, the other party to the proceedings disposed of all its assets and became bankrupt. The applicant obtained a favourable judgment from the Supreme Court of Justice, however to no avail since he could no longer enforce it against his former employer. The applicant alleges a breach of Article 6 § 1 and 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, arguing that due to the abusive actions of the Court of Appeal he lost his property. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     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 Balti Court of Appeal on 2 July 2013 (see Istrate v. Moldova , no. 53773/00, §§ 44-55, 13 June 2006)?   2.     Did the applicant lose his victim status as a result of the quashing of the above judgment by the Supreme Court of Justice on 6 March 2014?   3.     The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.