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 )?