CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2022

.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 7 February 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 35374/20 S.C. AGROGLED S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 4 August 2020 communicated on 18 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of civil proceedings in which the applicant company was defendant. In particular, the appeal on points of law was not examined by a panel competent to examine civil matters but by a panel from the administrative section of the Supreme Court of Justice. The applicant alleges that the change of panels had no legal basis under domestic law and was therefore contrary to the provisions of Section   61 of Law No. 514 of 1995. Therefore, its case was not examined by tribunal established by law within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the outcome of the proceedings amounted to a breach of the its rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the Supreme Court of Justice a “tribunal established by law” within the meaning of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention (see Gurov v. Moldova , no. 36455/02, § 37, 11 July 2006)?   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?