CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 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 21 March 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 55569/11 Alexandra PODDEACEVA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 22 August 2011 communicated on 2 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns examination by the Supreme Court of Justice of an appeal on points of law lodged outside the time-limit. The latter court’s decision resulted in the annulment of a judgment which had normally become final after the expiry of that time-limit. The Supreme Court of Justice did not give any reasons to reject the applicant’s argument that the other party’s appeal had been late. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about a breach of the principle of “legal certainty” and the loss of enjoyment of a final judgment in her favour. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Supreme Court of Justice examine an appeal lodged outside the legal time-limit, without giving reasons for rejecting the applicant’s argument in this respect ( Ponomaryov   v.   Ukraine , no.   3236/03, §§   41, 3 April 2008, and Bodiu v. The Republic of Moldova , no. 7516/10, 18 June 2019)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of accepting a late appeal (see the cases cited above)?