CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mars 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 April 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 56223/15 S.R.L. “VULPE E.” against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 4 November 2015 communicated on 25 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the seizure of all of the applicant’s assets as a surety. The applicant, an agricultural company, was defendant in civil proceedings in which the plaintiff sought to recover from it some 1,500 Euro. At the beginning of the proceedings the plaintiff requested, and the court granted, the freezing of all of the applicant’s assets and of its banking account as a surety. The applicant company appealed and argued that the freezing of all of its assets was not proportionate with the value of the court action. It also argued that it was prevented from conducting its business as a result of that measure. However, the appeal was dismissed. The applicant company complains that the measure applied to it was in breach of its rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as it made it impossible for it to sell its crops or obtain loans in order to operate. In the same context, it complains that the proceedings were not fair because the court that applied the surety measure failed to properly motivate its decision.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   If so, was the interference in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and was it necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest ( Petro-M SRL et Rinax-TVR SRL v. the Republic of Moldova , (dec.), 44787/05, §§ 15-27, 28   February 2017)?