CASE OF CEREALE FLOR S.A. AND ROŞCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
Nebojša Vučinić;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
5. The applicant company is a joint-stock company incorporated under Moldovan law. Ms Roșca was born in 1984 and lives in Chișinău. 6. On 23 February 2000 the Economic District Court ordered the applicant company to pay another company, E., 1,908,145 Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent to 152,190 euros (EUR)). The court issued a writ of enforcement. 7. On 14 July 2005 E. sought to restart the time-limit for the enforcement of the judgment dated 23 February 2000, arguing that it had been unable to initiate enforcement proceedings within the three-year statutory period because the bailiff had lost the original writ of enforcement. 8. On 2 May 2006 the Economic Court of Appeal, by a final judgment, dismissed E.’s application as being ill-founded, noting that a duplicate of the writ had been issued in 2003. 9. On 17 December 2008 the Economic Court of Appeal upheld an application by E. for a revision of the judgment, quashed the decision of 2 May 2006 and allowed the statutory time-limit to run anew. The court did not reply to the applicant company’s contention that the application was timebarred. 10. After communication, E. initiated enforcement proceedings and the applicant company paid MDL 294,405.37 (equivalent to EUR 18,400). 11. On 28 February 2007 the Ciocana District Court acknowledged the applicant’s entitlement, as a young family, to a plot of land for construction purposes. The court ordered the Tohatin local administration to grant the applicant ownership of such a plot of land. As there was no appeal, the judgment became final on 20 March 2007. 12. The applicant sought enforcement of the judgment of 28 February 2007, but to no avail. 13. On 11 February 2009 the Tohatin local administration lodged an application for a revision of the judgment, arguing that the applicant had not qualified as a young family because her husband had died in 2006 and she had therefore lost her entitlement to any land. 14. On 22 April 2009 the Ciocana District Court dismissed the application for revision, finding that the applicant had requested the plot of land in 2005. Her husband’s death had not qualified as a new circumstance because the local administration had been aware of that matter at the time of the proceedings. The local administration appealed. 15. On 24 June 2009, in the applicant’s absence, the Chișinău Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the decision of 22 April 2009 and upheld the application for revision. It also quashed the Ciocana District Court’s judgment of 28 February 2007 and delivered a new judgment on the merits that dismissed her claims as unsubstantiated. 16. After communication, the applicant brought a civil action, claiming damages for a violation of her right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, pursuant to Law no. 87 of 21 April 2011. She referred to the period of twenty-six months between 20 March 2007 and 24 June 2009, during which the judgment of 28 February 2007 had not been enforced. 17. On 16 March 2012 the Rîșcani District Court found for the applicant, acknowledged a violation of her rights and awarded her MDL 450,000 (equivalent to EUR 27,250) in respect of pecuniary damage, MDL 66,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and MDL 38,193 for legal costs. The court noted that the compensation for pecuniary damage represented the average market price of a plot of land of 0.09 ha. It said that it had used the reference size of 0.09 ha because the Tohatin local administration had granted plots of that size when executing similar judgments in respect of young families. The Ministry of Finance appealed. 18. On 25 October 2012 the Chișinău Court of Appeal, by a final judgment, found the length of the proceedings to have been excessive, which it attributed to the acts of the authorities. It awarded the applicant MDL 30,000 (equivalent to EUR 1,895) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and MDL 5,000 (equivalent to EUR 316) for costs and expenses. The court dismissed the remainder of the claim, noting that the applicant had failed to substantiate alleged costs for renting alternative accommodation and finding that no compensation for the land should be awarded because the judgment acknowledging her entitlement to that land had been quashed.