NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

defendant’s new headquarters. On 18 January 2002, the Ploieşti Court of Appeal, by a final decision, ruled in favour of the applicant company, considering that it was also entitled to reimbursement of the penalties for overdue payments to the state budget. This final decision was enforced in parts in 2002, September 2003, April 2004 and then in July 2005. The Romanian government did not contest that the applicant company was entitled to receive the enforcement-related expenses. They, however, did not point out any circumstances justifying the delays in paying those partial amounts. The Court ruled that it was unacceptable for a judgment debt against the state to not be honoured for a long period of time. In its opinion, the state authorities had not deployed all necessary efforts to fully enforce, in due time, the judgment in the applicant company’s favour, which led to an infringement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The non-enforcement of a judgment, which had declared a contract null and void and ordered the restitution of an applicant company’s investment, was the subject of the Court‘s consideration in the case of Unistar Ventures GmbH v. Moldova . 1168 The applicant, Unistar Ventures GmbH, was a foreign company incorporated in Germany. In 2000, the applicant company concluded a contract with the Moldovan Civil Aviation State Authority for the purchase and control of AirMoldova. On an unspecified date, the applicant company paid a non-refundable advance of approximately USD 3.7 million to the Brazilian aircraft manufacturer to purchase new aeroplanes as a part of its investment. In its decision of 6 August 2002, the Economic Court of Moldova held that the contract for the purchase of the AirMoldova was invalid. However, it did not indicate the amount to be paid to the applicant company, although the amount of the initial investment and the amount of the profits earned by the applicant company were readily and easily ascertainable. The judgment of the Economic Court was drafted in such a way as to make execution entirely dependent on the will of one member of the Moldovan government. In particular, the judgment ordered the restoration of the parties to their original position only after the Ministry of Finance had carried out an audit. Moreover, the only way for the judgment to be executed was that the government comply with it voluntarily. In such circumstances, it was concluded that the interference with the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of ‘possessions’ was disproportionate. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 1169 In a number of other Moldovan cases, the companies again complained about non-enforcement for several years of final judgments in their favour and about the lack of effective remedies for their enforcement. This was the issue after the judgments concerning complaints by two companies incorporated in Moldova, Triplu-Tudor S.R.L. and Tudor-Auto S.R.L. 1170 The Court observed that the judgments in favour of the applicant companies had become final and should have already been enforced. 1168 Unistar Ventures GmbH v. Moldova , no. 19245/03, § 98, 9 December 2008. 1169 European Court of Human Rights. Survey of activities 2007. Registry of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg, 2008, p. 46. 1170 Tudor-Auto SRL and Triplu-Tudor Sr.l. v. Moldova , nos. 36341/03, 36344/03, and 30346/05, § 1, 9 December 2008.

221