SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 40738/10 RED UNION FENOSA S.A . against the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20 February 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Paul Lemmens, President, Valeriu Griţco , Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 June 2010,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Red Union Fenosa S.A., is a company incorporated in Moldova. It was represented before the Court by Mr S. Bargan , a lawyer practising in Chișinău .

The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent at the time, Mr V. Grosu .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant company had a right to recover a debt of one million euros from a third company, B., on the basis of a contract between them. The company B. initiated court proceedings to declare null and void the contract with the applicant company. During the proceedings the civil courts issued interim measures ordering the suspension of the payment of the debt pending trial.

In its application to the Court, the applicant company submitted that, after the end of the proceedings in which it had been successful, the courts issued new interim measures suspending the payment of the debt. The Court was led to believe that the new interim measures were abusively ordered outside the framework of the civil proceedings at the request of company B. and that the superior courts dismissed its appeal against them.

After the communication of the case, the respondent Government informed the Court that in fact there was a new set of proceedings initiated by company B. against the applicant company and that the new interim measures were ordered within the framework of those new civil proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant company complained under Article 6 of the Convention that in ordering the new interim measures and in dismissing its appeal against them, the domestic courts failed to give reasons.

2. The applicant company also complained that the interim measures were abusive and constituted a breach of its rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

THE LAW

In their observations of 21 December 2010 the Government submitted, inter alia , that the applicant company had intentionally omitted to inform the Court that the new interim measures had been issued within the framework of the new civil proceedings initiated against it by the company B. According to the Government, the applicant company presented the facts in such a manner as to induce the Court to believe that the new interim measures had been ordered abusively outside the framework of the civil proceedings. The Government argued that such behaviour on the part of the applicant company constituted abuse of the right of individual application.

The applicant ’ s representative denied having presented untrue information in the application form and pointed to several passages in the application form where, according to him, the Court was presented with full information.

The Court recalls that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Řehák v. Czech Republic ( dec. ), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1) no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Kérétchachvili v. Georgia ( dec. ), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006). Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information ( Poznanski and Others v. Germany ( dec. ), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007).

Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that, when presenting the factual background of the case in the application form, the applicant company did not provide any information about the new set of proceedings initiated by company B. against it. The passages from the application form indicated by the applicant company did not contain any relevant information confirming the applicant company ’ s position.

The Court considers that the information concerning the new civil proceedings initiated by the company B. was of great importance in the determination of the question whether the application was meritorious. Having regard to the importance of the information at issue for the proper determination of the present case, the Court finds that the applicant ’ s conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention.

In view of the above, the application must accordingly be rejected as abusive, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares inadmissible the application.

Done in English and notified in writing on 22 March 2018 .

Hasan Bakırcı Paul Lemmens              Deputy Registrar President