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. 49546/14 Ruslan POROJAN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 23 June 2014 communicated on 19 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the superior courts to examine the applicant’s appeal against his conviction. After having been convicted in absentia by the first-instance court, he issued a power of attorney to a lawyer (B.C.) to represent him before the Court of Appeal. However, the Court of Appeal doubted the authenticity of this legal representation, following which the applicant wrote a letter to that court from abroad, confirming B.C.’s power to represent him. The court still had its doubts and, since the applicant was not present to confirm his representation, left the appeal without examination. The Supreme Court of Justice upheld that decision. The case raises issues under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) of the Convention (access to a court and right to be represented by a lawyer of one’s choice). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the facts of the case reveal a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the higher courts act with excessive formalism when refusing to examine his appeal against his conviction ( Walchli v. France , no. 35787/03, 26 July 2007)?   2.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant allowed to be represented by a lawyer of his own choosing ( Poitrimol v. France , 23 November 1993, Series A no.   277 ‑ A, and Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, ECHR 2015)?