CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 30 May 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 31224/16 Elena FOMOV against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 23 May 2016 communicated on 11 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns inconsistencies in the case-law of the Supreme Court of Justice. The applicant obtained an authorisation to transform her apartment into a hairdresser’s saloon. However, subsequently the mayor annulled the decision in view of alleged irregularities. The applicant lodged a court action arguing inter alia that the mayor did not have the power to annul such decisions. She referred to a number of previous decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice confirming the mayor’s lack of such a power. Without referring to this argument or to the case-law cited by the applicant, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the applicant’s claims. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because of inconsistencies in the case-law of the Supreme Court of Justice, resulting in a decision which is contrary to a number of decisions dealing with the same issue. She also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention since, as a result of the unlawful decision by the mayor, she lost the opportunity to operate her business.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, do the decisions in the applicant’s case reveal the existence of “profound and long-standing differences” in the case-law of the domestic courts regarding the issue of whether a mayor has the power to annul the type of decisions as those adopted in the applicant’s case? If so, does the domestic law provide for a mechanism for overcoming these inconsistencies? Has that mechanism been applied in the present case and to what effect ( Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, §§ 116 et seq. , 29 November 2016 )?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the applicant lawfully deprived of the possibility to continue operating her business ( Yel and Others v. Turkey , no.   28241/18, §§ 89 et seq. , 13 July 2021 )?