CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 March 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 64990/16 Ghennadi SUSCO against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 4 November 2016 communicated on 8 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the excessive length of bankruptcy proceedings which lasted more than ten years. The applicant, who was the owner of 92% of the stock of a company in the process of bankruptcy, initiated compensatory proceedings in domestic courts but was not successful. The courts dismissed his action on the ground that he was not a victim in the case but only the company concerned. The applicant complains that, in view of the outcome of the proceedings, he suffered a breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in what concerns the excessive length of the proceedings. He also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he suffered losses due to the fact that the assets and the accounts of the company were frozen for an excessive period of time.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( G.J.   v.   Luxembourg , no. 21156/93, §§ 22-25, 26 October 2000)? 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?