Published on 3 May 2021

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 18669/19 AGROKUALITA EOOD against Romania lodged on 22 March 2019 communicated on 16 April 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant company ’ s complaint that because of a conflicting interpretation of the domestic law regulating insolvency proceedings, and in particular of Article 42 § 3 of the relevant domestic law (Law no. 85/2014), the domestic courts have denied it the right to see its claims against a private party, company A., become enforceable.

According to Article 42 § 3, the requests lodged by the creditors which had not been notified about the start of the insolvency proceedings, to join the statement of affairs concerning the insolvent company, were to be considered as filed within the time-limit as of right, and hence, allowed to join the statement of affairs.

In substantiating its claim that the relevant domestic case-law was conflicting, the applicant company submitted three final decisions by which, in similar circumstances as those revealed by the present case, the domestic courts held that if the creditors had not been properly notified about the start of the insolvency proceedings, their claims to join the statement of affairs lodged outside the time-limit set by the liquidator must be accepted.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant company had a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as similar actions before various domestic courts concerning the acceptance of claims lodged, outside the time-limit imposed by the liquidator, by creditors who had not been properly notified of the start of the insolvency proceedings, had been accepted?

In particular, was the principle of legal certainty, as developed in the Court ’ s case-law in the interpretation of Article 6 of the Convention (see for instance Tudor Tudor v. Romania , no. 21911/03, 24 March 2009, and Albu and Others v. Romania , nos. 34796/09 and 63 others, 10 May 2012), complied with by the domestic courts?

2. Did the dismissal of the applicant company ’ s request to join the statement of affairs concerning company A. as being tardy amount to a breach of the applicant company ’ s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?