CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 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 }   Published on 6 April 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 31022/13 Valentin CIOCOI and Ludmila CIOCOI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 12 April 2013 communicated on 19 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged denial of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, following decisions taken by a domestic court affecting the applicants’ rights, without involving them in the proceedings. It also concerns reasons for the decisions taken, which result in limitations to the applicants’ property right by a third person, without any recourse possible owing to the applicants’ lack of any procedural status in the relevant proceedings. The applicants complain about a violation of their right of access to a court, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The case raises issues under Articles 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention – access to a court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ right of “access to a court”, within the meaning of that provision, limited by the adoption of decisions affecting their property right without involving them in the relevant proceedings? Did the courts give sufficient reasons for their decisions, notably in response to the applicants’ arguments concerning the expiry of the three-year limitations period and the failure to involve them in the proceedings? (see Business Şi Investiţii Pentru Toţi v. Moldova , no. 39391/04, 13 October 2009)   2.     Do the facts of the case disclose a violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ property right affected as a result of the court decisions allowing to search on their premises for undefined property belonging to a third party?