CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 avril 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2DED9654 { width:26.12pt; display:inline-block } .s5CB2AEA4 { width:160.77pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }       SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 28973/06 Stefan TERENTIEV against the Republic of Moldova   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2   April 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Ivana Jelić, President,   Valeriu Griţco,   Darian Pavli, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 May 2006, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Ştefan Terentiev, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr G. Bîrcă, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent at the time, Mr L. Apostol. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. During the divorce proceedings between the applicant and his former wife, the latter requested the division of their property. She indicated that their common property included inter alia , two thirds of an apartment, furniture, a car, money and her twenty-three percent participation in a limited liability company. She indicated that the value of her participation in the limited liability company amounted to some 11,000 United States Dollars and submitted documents to prove that value. The applicant’s wife also requested that an expert evaluation of the car be carried out. An evaluation was ordered by the court and carried out. In his pleadings before the court the applicant contested the value of his wife’s shares and stated that they were worth three of four times more than the value indicated by his wife. However, he did not indicate an exact amount and did not request the conduct of an expert evaluation. He did, however, contest the results of the expert evaluation of the car and requested that another evaluation be conducted. His request was dismissed by the court. On 29 June 2005 the Botanica District Court allowed the court action and decided inter alia that the applicant shall receive one third of their apartment, 11.5 percent of the his wife’s participation in the limited liability company, the car and other movable property. The applicant’s wife was ordered to pay him an amount of money. The applicant’s wife challenged the decision with an appeal. On 10 November 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the appeal and amended the solution given by the first instance court. In particular, the court found that it was contrary to the law to divide the applicant’s wife’s participation in the limited liability company because the company could not be obliged to receive new shareholders. Therefore the court decided to split the property in a different manner. In particular, the applicant was to keep the apartment, the car and other movable property while his wife was to keep her whole participation in the limited liability company and receive a monetary compensation from the applicant. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law in which he stated inter alia that the value of his wife’s shares was higher than that initially indicated by his wife and presented an expert evaluation according to which a building belonging to the said limited liability company was worth more than EUR 500,000. On 8 February 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair because the domestic courts did not order an expert evaluation of his wife’s participation in the limited liability company. Since the value of those goods was not real, the applicant alleges that there has been a breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW The applicant complained that the proceedings in question had not been fair and that his rights under Articles 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention had been breached. The relevant Articles provide, in so far as relevant, as follows: Article 6 § 1: “1.     In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... within a reasonable time.” Article 1 of Protocol 1: “1.     Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law...” The Government disputed the applicant’s allegations and argued that the application should be declared inadmissible. The Court notes that the applicant complained that the domestic courts did not order an expert assessment of the value of his wife’s participation in a limited liability company. Having examined the materials of the domestic case-file, the Court notes that the applicant made no request before the first instance court and before the Court of Appeal for an expert evaluation of his wife’s shares and that there is no indication that the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, was hindered to do so. It was only during the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice that the applicant presented for the first time an expert evaluation; however, it was too late to do so because the procedure before the Supreme Court did not concern the merits of the case. In the light of the above, the Court finds the complaint under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention to be manifestly ill-founded and rejects it under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. In view of its finding in respect of Article 6, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 9 May 2019.   Hasan Bakırcı   Ivana Jelić   Deputy Registrar   President