CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 29 juin 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC92CF002 { width:203.63pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }       SECOND SECTION CASE OF MIDGARD TERRA S.A. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 41538/13)         JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction – striking out)         STRASBOURG 29 June 2021 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Midgard Terra S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Carlo Ranzoni, President,   Valeriu Griţco,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 8 June 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 41538/13) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 27 May 2013 by a company incorporated in Moldova, Midgard Terra S.A. (“the applicant company”). 2     In a judgment delivered on 17 March 2020 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ( Braga et Midgard Terra S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 59351/12 and 41538/13, 17 March 2020). 3.     Under Article   41 of the Convention the applicant company sought the reinstatement of its right of property which it had lost as a result of the violation of its Convention rights. 4.     Since the question of the application of Article   41 of the Convention was not ready for decision as regards pecuniary damage, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., § 34 and point 4 of the operative provisions). 5.     On 20 November 2020 the Court received a letter from the Government stating that following revision proceedings the domestic courts ordered restitutio in integrum and thus the applicant’s right to property over the disputed goods was reinstated. The Government further submitted that the matter had been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and the further examination of the case was no longer justified. Hence the Government requested for the case to be struck out of the list of cases. 6.     On 20 November 2020 the Court received a letter from the applicant company stating that in view of the reinstatement of its rights by the domestic courts within the framework of the revision proceedings, the examination of the case was no longer justified under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. Hence the applicant company asked the Court to strike out the application from its list of cases. THE LAW 7.     The Court notes that in the principal judgment the Committee had joined the present application to another application, Braga v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 59351/12 – see paragraph 18 of the principle judgment). Having regard, however, to the nature of the facts in the present case, the Committee considers it appropriate to disjoin application no. 59351/12 from the present application. 8.     In the light of the submissions made by the parties (see paragraphs   5 and 6 above), the Court considers that the matter which had been reserved in the principal judgment has been resolved within the meaning of Article   37   §   1   (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article   37   §   1 in fine . 9.     Accordingly, the remainder of the application should be struck out of the list. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Disjoins the application in the case of Braga v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 59351/12) from the present application; Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases. Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 June 2021, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   {signature_p_2} Hasan Bakırcı   Carlo Ranzoni Deputy Registrar   President