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)?