CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 février 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 3 February 2021 Published on 22 February 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15763/16 CAMERTON S.A. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 16 March 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the reversal by the Supreme Court of Justice of two judgments in favour of the applicant company adopted in civil proceedings by two inferior courts. In those judgments the courts ordered the applicant’s neighbour to allow the applicant free passage to its property through the neighbour’s property. While acting as a first instance court, the Supreme Court of Justice failed to conduct a public hearing or to give the applicant the opportunity to state its case orally and gave a new interpretation to the facts of the case, substituting the findings of an expert report relied upon by the inferior courts by its own findings of a technical nature. The applicant company complains under Article 6 and 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention that the proceedings were not fair and that it had lost access to its property on that account. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( Covalenco v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 72164/14, 16 June 2020)?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   3.     The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.