Communicated on 25 February 2019
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 841/13
ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CHIȘINĂU
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 20 December 2012
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the refusal of the Moldovan Government to return to the applicant church properties confiscated from it by the Soviet regime after the occupation of Moldova. The applicant church initiated court proceedings against the Government arguing that it had been treated differently than the Orthodox Church of Moldova which recovered from the State property confiscated by the Soviet regime. In support of its claims it presented copies of documents from the National Archives concerning the title it had over the claimed goods before their confiscation by the Soviet regime. The courts argued that the documents from the National Archive were not proof of its former title to the claimed property although the defendant Government did not contest the said title. Moreover, the domestic courts did not make any comment in respect of the applicant’s argument concerning the alleged discriminatory treatment.
The applicant church complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts did not give an answer to its argument concerning the alleged discriminatory treatment.
The applicant church also claims that it had been subjected to discriminatory treatment on the basis of religion and argues that there has been a breach of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The applicant church also claims that it had no effective remedies as required by Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged breach of its rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts give an answer to all the important arguments adduced by the applicant (see Ruiz Torija v. Spain , 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303‑A)?
2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of its Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification (Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, § 29, ECHR 1999-I)?
The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy