NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

was MDL 901,853. The Moldovan Supreme Court of Justice upheld this application and awarded the new sum of MDL 901,853. The Court observed that as a result of the supplementary judgment, the applicant company lost ownership of a sum amounting to MDL 145,021 (EUR 9,268), which was considered a ‘possession’ for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. By upholding the creditor‘s claims, the Supreme Court of Justice upset the principle of legal certainty. Even though the outcome of the main proceedings was already unfavourable to the applicant company, the supplementary judgment altered a legal situation which was final and resulted in a further loss of property by the applicant company. In view thereof, the Court found that the additional judgment should be considered as an unjustified interference with the applicant company’s right to property. Quashing of the final judgment of a domestic court also served as a reason for finding a violation of Article 6 § 1 andArticle 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of Dragostea Copiilor – Petrovschi – Nagornii v. Moldova . 1177 The applicant company ran a primary school in Chişinău (Moldova). As a party to civil proceedings in 2001, the company was ordered to pay an individual 78,400 US dollars. However, in the final judgment in July 2007, an appeal court found that the application for enforcement of the order was time-barred. This final judgment in its favour had been subsequently quashed in review proceedings, which ended in October 2008 with the Moldovan Supreme Court judgment enforcing the original payment order. The Court confirmed that the applicant company had a ‘possession’ for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Namely, it was the amount of money that it had been absolved of returning by virtue of the July 2007 judgment. Quashing such a judgment after it has become final and no longer open to appeal constituted an interference with the judgment beneficiary’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of that possession. Even assuming that such interference served the public interest, it was not justified because the applicant company was required to bear an excessive burden. 1178 The case of Ipteh SA and Others v. Moldova 1179 originated in an application lodged with the Court by Ipteh SA, a company incorporated in Moldova, Worldway Limited, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom, Kapital Invest SA, a company incorporated in Romania, and Ion Rusu – a Romanian national. The latter three applicants all held shares in Ipteh SA. In 1999, Ipteh SAwas privatized. On an unspecified date in 2003, the President of Moldova requested the Prosecutor General’s Office to examine the possibility of challenging the privatisation of 1999. On 19 April 2007, the Moldovan Prosecutor General’s Office instituted proceedings in which it contested the lawfulness of the 1999 privatisation. The domestic courts ruled in favour of the Prosecutor General’s Office. The applicants complained before the Court that the proceedings were unfair because the domestic courts had failed to apply the time limit period under national law. As a result, the Prosecutor General was able to successfully challenge the privatisation after almost eight years. They also submitted that the judgments by which the Prosecutor General’s action for annulment of the 1177 Dragostea Copiilor – Petrovschi – Nagornii v. Moldova , no. 25575/08, 13 September 2011. 1178 Ibid. , § 40. 1179 Ipteh SA and Others v. Moldova , no. 35367/08, § 1, 24 November 2009.

223