CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mars 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 5 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38639/14 Elena ARZAMAZOVA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 3 May 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the annulment of a privatisation allegedly carried out in breach of the principle of legal certainty. The applicant purchased an old uninhabited and unused building from the local council of her village. The building was in a very poor state and in need of serious renovation works. After the purchase, the applicant also purchased the adjacent land and invested a large amount of money into the renovation of the building. Some three years and three months later the Prosecutor’s Office lodged an action with a district court seeking the annulment of the privatisation on the ground that the price paid by the applicant at the time of the purchase had been lower than the real market value of the building. The domestic courts upheld the Prosecutor’s action and annulled the privatisation. They dismissed the applicant’s objection relating to the statute of limitations and refused to grant her compensation for the renovation expenditures. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, namely of the building and the adjacent land, was breached. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the annulment of the contract for the purchase of the disputed building by the applicant disclose a violation of her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ( Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova , no. 3052/04, 18   March 2008)?   The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.