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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 7 February 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 39726/20 The Housing Cooperative no. 312 against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 20 August 2020 communicated on 18 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a civil law dispute between the applicant and a construction company. The first two instances dismissed the action lodged by the construction company against the applicant on the grounds, inter alia , that the action had been time-barred. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Justice reversed the above judgments and found against the applicant. In so doing, it did not examine and did not even mention the applicant’s objection concerning the Statute of Limitations. The applicant complains that the proceedings were not fair under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that, as a result, its rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were also breached. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Grafescolo S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 36157/08, §§ 23-24, 22 July 2014)?   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?