THIRD SECTION

Application no. 36157/08 GRAFESCOLO SRL against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 11 July 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Grafescolo SRL, is a company incorporated in the Republic of Moldova . It is represented before the Court by Mr V. Nagacevschi , a lawyer practising in Chişinău .

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

On 13 February 2003 the Vadul lui Voda local council adopted a decision concerning the sale of a plot of land with a greenhouse on it to the applicant company. Subsequently a contract was concluded for that purpose between the local council and the applicant company.

On 15 June 2006 the Vadul lui Voda local council adopted a decision by which it annulled its previous decision. The applicant initiated proceedings against the local council.

During the proceedings the Vadul lui Voda local Council introduced a counter-action seeking the termination of the contract of sale between it and the applicant company on the ground that the applicant had not paid the entire price for the goods acquired in 2003.

On 13 April 2007 the Ciocana District Court rejected the applicant ’ s action but accepted that of the local council and declared the contract of sale null and void.

On 5 September 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the appeal lodged by the applicant company and reversed the judgment of the first instance court. In so doing, the court found that the applicant company had paid the entire price of the property bought in 2003.

On 16 January 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the appeal on points of law lodged by the Vadul lui Voda local council. It quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and upheld the judgment of the Ciocana District Court of 13 April 2007. Only the representative of the local council was summoned to the hearing of the Supreme Court and the applicant company did not participate in the proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not been summoned to the hearing before the Supreme Court of Justice.

2. He also complains under Article 6 that the Supreme Court disregarded the Statute of limitations when upholding the action of the Vadul lui Voda local council and that the Supreme Court failed to give reasons for its decision.

3. The applicant company finally complains that the solution reached in the case breached its rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

QUESTIONS

1. Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?