Published on 11 April 2022

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 49552/16 GRAFESCOLO S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 17 August 2016 communicated on 25 March 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a civil law dispute between the applicant and a local council. In 2003 the applicant purchased a plot of land and a greenhouse from the Vadul lui Vodă local council. Three and a half years later the local council introduced a court action seeking the annulment of the contract of sale and was successful in the proceedings in spite of the applicant company’s objection that their court action had been time-barred. In its judgment Grafescolo S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 36157/08, 22 July 2014), the Court found a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on the account of the fact that in ruling on the above dispute, the domestic courts had failed to give an answer to the applicant’s argument about the statute of limitations.

Following the above judgment of the Court, the domestic courts re-opened the proceedings, only to end them with exactly the same solution as the first time and again without giving an answer to the applicant’s argument about the statute of limitations.

The applicant complains that the re-opened proceedings were not fair under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that, as a result, its rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were also breached.

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 (see Grafescolo S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 36157/08, §§ 23-24, 22 July 2014)?

2. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?