CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 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 11 April 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 54165/15 S.C. DICMEN S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 21 October 2015 communicated on 25 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a civil law dispute between the applicant company and a third company concerning the right over a part of a building. The Supreme Court upheld an allegedly time-barred action lodged by the third company. As a result of the outcome of those proceedings, the applicant eventually lost its rights over the disputed assets. The applicant complains under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention that the proceedings in question were not fair 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?