CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 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 19 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6431/14 Alexandra MIHAILIUC against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 17 December 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the upholding by the domestic courts of a court action which was allegedly time-barred. The courts did not give any answer to the applicant’s objection that the action had been time-barred. The applicant alleges that the proceedings were unfair under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because the domestic courts failed to give answer to such an important objection. She also alleges that she did not have an effective remedy in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( Ruiz Torija v. Spain , judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303 ‑ A)?   The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.