CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 novembre 2023

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 20 November 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10435/10 Nicolae RAZESU and Others against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 28 November 2009 communicated on 2 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the annulment, on an appeal not provided for by the domestic law, of a court decision to accept a civil court action for examination, and the resulting striking out of that case. The applicants are minority shareholders in a company (M.) and started civil court proceedings, claiming a part of M.’s assets by separating them from M. The first-instance court accepted the case for examination in a final decision not subject to any appeal, but the Court of Appeal annulled it and decided to strike the case out. The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention about a violation of their right of access to a court. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? If so, did the applicants have access to a court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76 et seq. , 5 April 2018)? In particular, given that the appeal annulling the court decision in question was not provided for by domestic law, did the limitation of the applicants’ right of access to court restrict that right in such a way that its very essence was impaired? Has that limitation pursued a legitimate aim and was it proportionate in relation to the aim pursued in these circumstances (see Zubac , cited above, §   79)?   APPENDIX   Application no. 10435/10   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Nicolae RĂZEȘU 1965 Moldovan Chișinău 2. Pavel BECCIV 1959 Moldovan Chișinău 3. Viorel CHETRUŞCĂ 1979 Moldovan Chișinău 4. Mihail GHERŞTOGA 1953 Moldovan Chișinău 5. Ion JURA 1961 Moldovan Colonița 6. Irina MOCAN 1972 Moldovan Chișinău 7. Iurie PILIPENCO 1960 Moldovan Chișinău 8. Irina RĂZEȘU 1964 Moldovan Chișinău 9. Ala SIMINENCO 1960 Moldovan Chișinău 10. Ion SIMINENCO 1953 Moldovan Chișinău 11. Margareta STRUGAC 1955 Moldovan Chișinău 12. Veaceslav SUVALOV 1938 Moldovan Chișinău 13. Valeriu TENTIU 1964 Moldovan Chișinău 14. Anatolie TIGANENCO 1964 Moldovan Chișinău