CASE OF ZIAUNYS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award
Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
6. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Vilnius. 7. The applicant is a member of the International Banknote Society, the American Numismatic Association and the Collectors’ Club of Vilnius. 8. On 12 December 2000 the applicant signed a contract with the Educational Coin Company (“the company”), registered in the United States of America (“the USA”), according to which he would deliver to the company 8,500 kg of banknotes (in five and ten rouble notes) issued by the self-proclaimed Bank of the “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria (MRT)” (see further details about the events leading to the creation of the self-proclaimed “MRT” in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004VII). In exchange, under the contract, he had the right to select items from the company’s wholesale catalogue to a value of 7,000 United States dollars (USD). 9. On 26 January 2001 the applicant bought from the “MRT” bank 13,590,000 “MRT” roubles (in five and ten rouble banknotes) issued in 1994. The banknotes issued in 1994 were no longer in circulation in the “MRT”, having been replaced by new banknotes in 2000. Such banknotes have never been in official circulation in Moldova and had been accepted as payment only in the “MRT” and only prior to 2000. 10. On 1 February 2001 the applicant submitted to Moldovan customs 353 sealed bags of banknotes issued by the “MRT” bank in 1994. He asked for permission to ship the items to the USA, in accordance with the contract with the company. He declared that the paper in the bags had a numismatic value of USD 7,000. 11. The customs authority decided to store the bags in its warehouse until a decision could be taken about what to do with them. Subsequently, the bags were moved to the premises of the State Tax Inspectorate (“the STI”), where they have remained since. 12. By a decision of 23 July 2003 and further to a report of 25 August 2003, the Customs Department decided not to return the banknotes to the applicant and to transfer them instead to the STI for free as the items were banned from general circulation in Moldova. 13. The applicant asked on a number of occasions for the return of the items confiscated from him. On an unknown date in 2005 he initiated court proceedings to have the decisions taken in July and August 2003 set aside and the items returned to him. 14. On 19 April 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed his court action as lodged out of time. On 3 August 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed that decision and ordered a rehearing of the case by the lower court. 15. On 7 November 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s claims in part. The court found that the banknotes under examination had never been introduced into general circulation in Moldova and had never been exchanged for the official currency of the country. There was no evidence in the file that the banknotes had been manufactured for circulation in Moldova. The applicant had officially declared the 353 bags of banknotes, which he considered to be waste paper with numismatic value, in order to transport them abroad. Moreover, it had to be presumed that he had obtained the items in a lawful manner, unless proof to the contrary had been adduced. However, nobody had claimed a property right in respect of the relevant items. The court concluded that the Customs Department and the STI had acted unlawfully. 16. On 17 May 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the lower court’s judgment and delivered a new one, rejecting all his claims. The court found that, in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Money Act (see paragraph 19 below), only the National Bank of Moldova had the right to issue banknotes, and that the “MRT” bank had not been given such a right. As a result, the banknotes issued by the “MRT” bank could not be introduced into legal circulation and could not, under Article 206 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 18 below), be the lawful object of the contract of 26 January 2001. That judgment was final.