CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 2024

.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 16 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 52407/17 LORINELA GRUP SRL against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 13 July 2017 communicated on 27 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged restriction of the applicant company’s access to court, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant is a private company which in 2012 was contracted by another private company, C., to build a new kindergarten. According to the contract, in the event of any disputes the parties were first to exhaust a friendly-settlement procedure before initiating court proceedings. The construction works were completed in 2012 but payment was incomplete. On 8 June 2015 the applicant company sent company C. via registered mail a formal notice requesting payment of the outstanding debt. In the absence of any action, on 20 July 2015 the applicant company instituted civil proceedings against company C. claiming the amount of 40,834 euros (EUR), comprising the debt and interest. The applicant company submitted to the domestic court the formal notice and acknowledgement of its receipt. On 21   July 2015 the Criuleni District Court registered the applicant company’s case for examination, considering that it met the admissibility criteria. On the following day, at the applicant company’s request, the judge ordered interim measures authorising the freezing of company C.’s assets. On   27 June 2016, at company C.’s request, the Criuleni District Court struck out the case on the grounds that the applicant company had failed to exhaust the friendly ‑ settlement pre-court proceedings. The decision was finally upheld by the Chișinău Court of Appeal on 19 December 2016. The applicant company’s repeated attempt to institute civil proceedings in 2017 failed as its claims were rejected as time-barred. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, the applicant company complains, in essence, of having been deprived of access to a court on account of the domestic courts’ decisions which, on the one hand, disregarded the formal notice as evidence of pre-court proceedings and, on the other hand, took an excessive amount of time to rule on such preliminary issues, thus precluding any subsequent proceedings due to the expiry of the statutes of limitation, which also breached its property rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant company have access to a court for the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5   April 2018)? In particular, were the decisions of the domestic courts, by which it was decided not to adjudicate on the case, in breach of the applicant company’s right of access to a court guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Nesterenko and Gaydukov v. Russia , nos. 20199/14 and 20655/14, §§ 29 ‑ 35, 24 October 2017; Negura and Others v. the Republic of Moldova [Committee], no. 16602/06, §§ 27-33, 5 March 2019)?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant company’s right to property, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Project-Trade D.O.O. v. Croatia , no. 1920/14, §§ 85-86, 19 November 2020)?