SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 48747/09 Lisnic Nicolae & Co against the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21 November 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Ledi Bianku, President, Valeriu Griţco, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 June 2009,

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, Lisnic Nicolae & Co, is an individual enterprise ( întreprindere individuală ) registered in Moldova and located in S î ngera, Moldova. It was represented before the Court by Mr A. Postică, a lawyer practising in Chisinau.

The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.

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

In April 2003 the applicant acquired tenancy of a commercial space owned by the municipality.

In July 2003 the applicant company concluded a contract with the Privatisation Department for the privatisation of the above commercial space.

In 2006 a private company, P., initiated proceedings seeking the annulment of the 2003 tenancy and privatisation contracts on the grounds that it was the legitimate owner of the commercial space in question since 2001 and that the municipality and Privatisation Department had no right to dispose of it.

The proceedings ended with a judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 10 December 2008 in favour of company P.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention t hat its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions had been violated.

THE LAW

In their observations of 7 November 2013 the Government submitted, inter alia , that the applicant company had sold the disputed property after the beginning of the proceedings with company P. Later, during the proceedings the property was sold once again by the new owner to another person. Therefore, the proceedings continued between company P. and the new owners of the disputed property. In this respect, the Government argued that the applicant was not a victim of the alleged breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

The applicant ’ s representative admitted the existence of the transactions mentioned by the Government and stated that the applicant had omitted to inform him about them. No explanation was given as to the reasons of the omission.

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; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1) , no. 74153/01 , § 48, 18 January 2005; Řehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01 , 18 May 2004; 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).

In the circumstances of the present case, the applicant has not furnished any plausible explanation for the failure to inform the Court about the fact that the disputed property had been sold before the end of the domestic proceedings. The Court considers that the information concerning the sale of the disputed property was of great importance in the determination of the question whether the applicant company was a victim of a breach of its property right. 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 the application inadmissible .

Done in English and notified in writing on 14 December 2017 .

Hasan Bakırcı Ledi Bianku              Deputy Registrar President