NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

privatisation was upheld had the effect of infringing their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The Court noted that the time limit for challenging the privatisation of 1999 provided for by the Civil Code in force at the material time expired in 2002. Therefore, the Prosecutor General’s action after the expiry of the general time limit, in the absence of any compelling reasons, was incompatible with the principle of legal certainty. The national court’s judgments in the Prosecutor General’s favour constituted an unjustified interference with the applicants’ right to property. Two judgments of the Moldovan Supreme Court of Justice on 24 April and 24 July 2003, which set aside the final judgment of 23 October 1992, violated the applicant’s rights guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of Moldovahidromaş v. Moldova . 1180 Similar to the previously mentioned case, the Prosecutor General filed a request with the Moldovan Supreme Court of Justice for the annulment of the 1992 judgment, which was satisfied. In view of the fact that the Moldovan government had not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case, the Court ruled in favour of the applicant company. The Prosecutor General’s actions for annulment of the applicants’ purchase and lease of agricultural land led to finding a violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of Straisteanu and Others v. Moldova . 1181 The applicants in this case were three Moldovan nationals and their company, Codrana-Lux, based in Moldova. The final court’s judgment was also subject to revision in the case of Tudor-Auto SRL and Triplu-Tudor Sr.l. v. Moldova . 1182 This also led to a declaration of a breach of the Convention right to property. In the case of Oferta Plus SRL v. Moldova , 1183 the Court again reiterated that quashing a judgment after it has become final and unappealable constitutes an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of that possession. The applicant company had an enforceable claim deriving from the judgment of 27 October 1999, which remained unenforced at least until December 2003. Such a judgment debt may be regarded as a ‘possession’ for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The inability to obtain the enforcement of the judgment constituted an interference with the company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. On 12 July 2004, the final judgment was quashed. Having regard to a breach of the principle of legal certainty, the Court concluded that the Moldovan authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s interests and the other interests involved. Accordingly, it found an infringement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In the case of Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia , 1184 the Court noted that the domestic proceedings concerning the applicant party had been conducted in breach of the principle of legal certainty (the final judgment in favour of the party was quashed). Nevertheless, the Court did not rule on Article 6 1180 Moldovahidromaş v. Moldova , no. 30475/03, § 42, 27 February 2007. 1181 Straisteanu , cited above, §§ 96-97. 1182 Tudor-Auto SRL and Triplu-Tudor Sr.l. , cited above, § 24. 1183 Oferta Plus SRL , cited above, § 113. 1184 Russian Conservative Party , cited above, § 96.

224