Published on 31 January 2022

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 35393/11 SILUMIN S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 18 May 2011 communicated on 10 January 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns adoption by the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice of a decision which affected the applicant company’s rights, without involving it in the proceedings. That court decision interpreted an earlier decision in proceedings between two other parties, and in doing so ordered the applicant company to vacate the premises that it rented from one of those parties. Three judges wrote a separate opinion, finding that the decision could not have been lawfully adopted without involving first all those affected by it.

The applicant company complains of a breach of Article 6 of the Convention (access to court).

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant company’s right of access to a court within the meaning of that provision affected by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice adopted in the present case (see Business Şi Investiţii Pentru Toţi v. Moldova , no. 39391/04, §§ 29-34, 13 October 2009)?