CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s7E985A6E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 4 April 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25819/12 Vitalie STĂVILĂ against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 17 April 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the manner in which the applicant (national of the Republic of Moldova and Russia) lost his 70% participation in a limited liability company. His minority partner controlling 30% of the shares initiated proceedings seeking the exclusion of the applicant from the company’s list of shareholders on the ground that he, in his capacity of the company’s chief executive officer, sold several apartments and a car belonging to the company at prices lower than the market value, thus causing damage to the company. The applicant’s arguments in his defence to the effect that the prices were not lower than the market value were not taken into consideration and his request to have an independent expert evaluate the goods was rejected. The courts upheld the plaintiff’s action and ordered the applicant’s exclusion from the list of company’s shareholders without ordering any kind of compensation for his shares. The applicant alleges that the proceedings were unfair under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because the domestic courts rejected his requests to have an expert evaluate the value of the goods. He also alleges that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   Has there been a breach of the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?