Published on 23 May 2022

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 30085/13 SEKSIMP GROUP SRL against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 1 April 2013 communicated on 3 May 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a private dispute concerning the non-execution of a tenancy contract following which the applicant company was obliged to pay an excessive amount of compensation and was deprived of its possessions in an allegedly arbitrary manner. In particular, in January 2010 the applicant company signed a tenancy contract with T., another private company, for two pig stables for an annual rent of 3,600 euros (EUR). In October 2010 T. signed a contract with L., another private company, on the acquisition of livestock and fodder. In January 2011 T. initiated court proceedings against the applicant company claiming that its alleged failure to transfer possession of the stables and to provide correct banking information had prevented the execution of the tenancy contract, which in turn prevented T. from executing its obligations under the contract with L.. T. claimed EUR 70,000 in compensation of pecuniary damage, which represented the penalty it had paid L.. In the applicant company’s absence, on 18 April 2011 the first-instance court upheld the claims in full. In September 2011, in its absence, the applicant company’s assets (22 ha of land and ten buildings with a total surface of over 12,000 sq.m.) were sold at an auction. The applicant company learned about the proceedings and the auction when the new owners claimed the property in October 2011. The applicant company appealed against the first ‑ instance judgment arguing, among others, that the case had been examined in its absence, that there was no causal link between the alleged failure to execute the tenancy contract and the claimed damage, which was speculative and disproportionate. The appeals were dismissed as ill ‑ founded in 2012. The applicant company complains of a violation of its rights under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given its absence at the first-instance court ( Bacaksız v. Turkey , no. 24245/09, §§ 56-57, 10 December 2019)? Did the domestic courts comply with their obligation under that provision of the Convention to give reasons for their decisions and to reply to specific, pertinent and important arguments by the parties ( Pişkin v. Turkey , no. 33399/18, §§ 146-151, 15 December 2020)?

2. Has the State complied with its positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to provide judicial mechanisms for the protection of the applicant company’s property rights(see Kotov v. Russia [GC], no. 54522/00, §§ 109-15, 3 April 2012)?