CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } Published on 1 December 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 29396/21 CENTRUL DE CERCETARE PENTRU MATERIALE MACROMOLECULARE ȘI MEMBRANE (CCMMM) S.A. against Romania lodged on 2 June 2021 communicated on 10 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged breach of the applicant company’s right of access to a court in relation to the determination of a contract and the payment of compensation from another company under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its right of property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The domestic courts did not yet rule on the merits of the applicant company’s claims. The insolvency judge ( judecătorul sindic ) declined jurisdiction in favour of the civil courts. The latter decided to stay the civil proceedings on the ground that the applicant company’s claims should have been brought in the insolvency proceedings. In particular, on 3 June 2016 the applicant, a private company, had lodged before the domestic courts, in the framework of insolvency proceedings, an action against another company, requesting the termination of contracts concerning intellectual property rights, compensation for failure to comply with the contracts and the prohibition to use the technical solutions supplied. By a final decision of 1 st February 2017, the insolvency judge ( judecătorul sindic) decided to disjoin these claims from the insolvency proceedings and sent them before a civil judge of the same court. On 21   October   2019 the Pitești Court of Appeal decided to stay the civil proceedings until the end of the insolvency proceedings against the debtor. By a final decision of 9 December 2020, the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the HCCJ”) confirmed the stay of the civil proceedings and held that the applicant company should have brought its claims in the insolvency proceedings, according to the national law in force at that time. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant company complains of lack of access to a court, since its claims against the insolvent company have not been decided by the domestic courts. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant company alleges a breach of its right of property related to the claims against the insolvent company deriving from its intellectual 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? Has there been a restriction of the applicant company’s right of access to a court in the circumstances of the case? If so, was the restriction justified under the said provision (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no.   40160/12, §§ 97-98, 5 April 2018, Kutić v. Croatia , no. 48778/99, §§ 25 and 32, ECHR   2002-II and Miu v. Romania , no. 7088/03, §§ 28-31, 6   November 2012)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (see Tokel v. Turkey , no. 23662/08, §§ 56-57, 9 February 2021,   Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedoni a [GC], no. 60642/08, §   98, ECHR   2014 and S.C. Antares Transport S.A. and S.C. Transroby S.R.L. v. Romania , no.   27227/08, §§ 46 and 51, 15 December 2015)?