Communicated on 16 September 2014
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 40338/07
Dumitru GALUPA
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 7 September 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dumitru Galupa, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Chisinau. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Iordachi, a lawyer practising in Chişinău.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 30 April 2004 the applicant applied to the State Agency for Intellectual Property (hereinafter called “AGEPI”) to register “Aquaphor” as a trademark. On 22 March 2006 AGEPI issued a decision by which it granted the applicant’s request. On 20 April 2006 AGEPI dismissed an appeal (contestatie) lodged by the private company “Aquaphor” incorporated in Russia (hereinafter called “A.”) and confirmed the lawfulness of its decision.
On 11 September 2006 A. initiated court proceedings seeking the cancelation of AGEPI’s decision dated 22 March 2006 arguing, inter alia, that the applicant had acted in bad faith when he sought the registration of the impugned trademark.
On 1 December 2006 the Chisinau Court of Appeal dismissed A.’s claim as ill-founded. At an unspecified date A. lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice.
On 7 March 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice adjourned the hearing until 15 March 2007 at 10 a.m. on the ground that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants appeared before the court. The applicant and his representative were not legally summoned.
On 14 March 2007 a court clerk called the applicant’s representative and informed her that the court hearing was supposed to take place on the next day. On the same day the applicant’s representative filed a written request asking the court to postpone the hearing since she had to participate at the examination of another case before the same court at the same time but at a different address.
On 15 March 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice held a public hearing in the case, upheld the plaintiff’s appeal, quashed the lower court’s judgment and ordered the cancelation of the applicant’s trademark’s registration. Neither the applicant, nor his representative participated at that hearing.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were not fair because he had not been summoned to appear before the Supreme Court.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy