CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 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 16 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 48998/10 BUSINESS-INVESTIȚII PENTRU TOȚI S.A. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 26 July 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a decision affecting the merits of the applicant company’s claims, without hearing its arguments, in the re-opening proceedings after the Court found a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the failure to examine the applicant company’s court action. It raises an issue under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, did the Supreme Court of Justice adopt a decision concerning the substance of the the applicant company’s rights without seeing its submissions concerning the merits of its claim (see Business si Investitii Pentru Toti v. Moldova , no. 39391/04, §§ 29-34, 13   October 2009)?