Communicated on 28 September 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 50211/09 VERONICA-P SRL against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 15 September 2009

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

In an initial court action V. sued the applicant company (V-P), claiming that he was the owner of a piece of land and a building situated on it, while V-P had unlawfully registered its property right over the same property. In a final judgment of 20 April 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the claims and found that V-P was the rightful owner and that various administrative decisions, taken years previously and leading to the registration of V-P ’ s right, had not been challenged and were in force.

In a new set of proceedings brought in 2007 V. sought the annulment of all the relevant administrative decisions and, on that basis, the annulment of V-P ’ s title to the land and building in question. V-P argued, inter alia , that its title had already been confirmed in a final court judgment and that, in any case, V. had missed the time-limit set in the Law on administrative proceedings ( legea contenciosului administrtativ ) for challenging the relevant administrative decisions (30 days from finding out about them). The courts annulled all the administrative decisions and V-P ’ s title to the land and building in question.

The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1, in respect of effectively depriving a final court judgment of its final effect and of examination of a time-barred court action, and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in that it lost its property as a result of the above-mentioned decisions.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) did the judgments adopted in the 2007 proceedings deprive of all effect the final judgment of 20 April 2005, in breach of the principle of legal certainty (see, for instance, Stamova v. Bulgaria , no. 8725/07, § 70, 19 January 2017)?

(b) did the courts give sufficient reasons for rejecting V-P ’ s argument that the administrative action had been time-barred from examination (see, for instance, Nichifor v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 52205/10, §§ 28-32, 20 September 2016 )?

2. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the decisions taken by the domestic courts?