CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 septembre 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sCAE99ACB { width:90.12%; border-collapse:collapse } .s489FE0 { width:8.6%; 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 } .sA96BF3EF { width:22.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4CB25C8E { width:30.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s70EE3172 { width:20.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s467F9E6 { width:17.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCFE21E2D { width:8.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAD9CE6C7 { width:22.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFC48EECD { width:30.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9337260A { width:20.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s765E5864 { width:17.76%; 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 17 October 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 49535/16 ARTMET S.A. and Others against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 10 August 2016 communicated on 29 September 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (adversarial proceedings   / equality of arms) in civil proceedings concerning the applicant company’s claim that it had the right to continue producing license plates for the authorities. After an initial judgment in favour of the applicant company, Artmet S.A. , its lawyer informed the Court of Appeal of his absence following surgery and asked for an adjournment, annexing a copy of the relevant medical excerpt ( extras medical ). At its first and only hearing, that court rejected the request since the copy had not been properly authenticated; it reversed the lower court’s judgment. According to the applicant company, it did not receive a copy of the other parties’ submissions on appeal before the Court of Appeal had ruled on the appeal. The Supreme Court of Justice did not give any reasons in this respect. The applicant company complains that Article 6 § 1 was breached in that the judgment in its favour was overturned in the absence of its lawyer and without it having the opportunity to comment on the other parties’ submissions on appeal.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in particular in view of the examination of the appeal in the absence of the applicant company’s lawyer and without the applicant having the opportunity to become acquainted with the contents of the other parties’ submissions on appeal and to comment on them (compare Vardanyan and Nanushyan v.   Armenia , no. 8001/07, §§ 86-90, 27 October 2016, and Prebil v. Slovenia , no.   29278/16, §§ 42-46, 19 March 2019)?       Application no. 49535/16   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. ARTMET S.A.   Moldovan Chisinau 2. DIPAS-TUR S.R.L.   Moldovan Chisinau 3. Victor ODOBESCU 1944 Moldovan Chisinau