CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 avril 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 26 April 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 62373/10 Alina CALALB against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 13 October 2010 communicated on 7 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant argues that her appeal, which was normally to be examined by a composition of the Supreme Court of Justice which that court had designated for dealing with all such appeals, was in fact examined by a different composition. Moreover, no decision was taken specifically to replace the ordinary composition with another one and explaining the reasons for doing so. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (“tribunal established by law”). QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the composition of the Supreme Court of Justice which examined the applicant’s appeal amount to a “tribunal established by law”? (see DMD GROUP, a.s., v. Slovakia , no. 19334/03, §§ 62-72, 5 October 2010)