CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mai 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA38CC292 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sB21836CE { width:110.8%; border-collapse:collapse } .s321E263B { height:27.6pt } .sED7604B8 { width:7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA84C975C { width:34.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s83644B58 { width:20.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFE98CC46 { width:17.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC964C34F { width:19.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEDD33E80 { width:7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sCB67FCA4 { width:34.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s938C3937 { width:20.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1675B0A5 { width:17.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBAD7193E { width:19.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 7 June 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 55361/12 CARAHASANI-VIN S.A. and Others against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 22 August 2012 communicated on 18 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged denial of the applicants’ right of access to court. Applicants 2 to 5 (see appended table) are creditors of applicant 1 (C., a winery). During insolvency proceedings against C., a bank (B.S.) asked to be given possession of property which C. had pledged to that bank in order to guarantee the return of a credit. A court accepted that request in a decision which was not subject to any appeal, relying on the priority given to creditors with pledged assets to recover such assets. The applicants were not informed of the hearing leading to that decision. Each of them lodged an appeal, arguing that their rights had been affected by the decision since as a result most of C.’s property had been transferred to B.S.; that some of the property so transferred had been pledged to other creditors (notably to applicant 2); that the value of the property so transferred exceeded C.’s debt towards B.S. Moreover, they had been deprived of the possibility to find the best buyer (and avoid B.S. selling the assets at a much lower price), so that the sale price of the pledged property would cover not only C.’s debt towards B.S., but also a part of its debts towards the other creditors, including applicants 2 to 5. The applicants complain of a breach of Article 6 (access to court, because the transfer of property to B.S. affected their rights, yet they had neither been informed of the relevant hearing, nor allowed to appeal against it).       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, notably in respect of the applicants’ right of “access to court” as a result of the decision ordering the transfer of property to B.S., which allegedly affected the applicants’ rights and of which they had not been informed or allowed to appeal ( Business Şi Investiţii Pentru Toţi v. Moldova , no. 39391/04, §§   29 ‑ 34, 13   October 2009)?   APPENDIX List of applicants   Application no. 55361/12   No. Applicant’s Name Year of registration Nationality Place of residence 1. CARAHASANI-VIN SA 1995   Ștefan-Vodă 2. GABO SRL 1992   Chișinău 3. DROB-GHER SRL 1997   Fălești 4. MAMIRS SRL 1993   Chișinău 5. VININVEST SRL 1994   Chișinău