CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 20 January 2021 Published on 8 February 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 1836/16 Svetlana OUŞ against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 28 December 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an inheritance dispute between the applicant and her mother. The applicant’s mother challenged a will by which her late husband who was also the applicant’s father bestowed on the applicant a house, ten years after the applicant had accepted the inheritance. The first   instance dismissed the action as time-barred ruling that the applicant’s mother had missed the three years’ limitation period, but the two superior courts reversed that judgment and ruled in favour of the applicant’s mother without giving any plausible explanation for reaching a different conclusion on the issue concerning the statute of limitations. The applicant complains the ruling of the domestic courts was contrary to the principle of legal certainty and therefore breached her rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article   1 of Protocol No.   1?