CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s9DB1FF39 { width:33.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sBF26353E { width:36.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE2B1C305 { width:29.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s984AF06C { width:33.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA668D946 { width:36.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1EA4991 { width:29.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 5 January 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 10935/18 INTER TRADE INVESTMENT COMPANY S.R.L. and Others against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 16 February 2018 communicated on 10 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly excessive and unlawful seizure (for the purpose of subsequent confiscation) of the applicant companies’ property and bank accounts in the course of criminal investigation against G., the manager and main shareholder of the applicant companies. On 7 August 2015 Inter Trade Investment Company S.R.L. (first applicant company) concluded a sale-purchase agreement with another company (V.), according to which the former had to deliver a combine harvester. On 15 August 2016 the police initiated criminal proceedings against G., as the manager of the first applicant company, for fraud. On 14 September 2016 the manager of V. lodged a civil claim, within the criminal proceedings, seeking compensation for pecuniary damage of EUR   143,140. On 22 October 2016 the police ordered the seizure of G.’s property and bank accounts, as well as the property and bank accounts of all the applicant companies. The orders were subsequently upheld by courts. The applicant companies sought the annulment of the seizure. They argued that the seizure was unlawful because they did not have any procedural status in the criminal proceedings and the seized goods belonged to them and not to G. and that the value of the seized goods significantly exceeded the pecuniary damage alleged by V. On 16 August 2017 the appellate court rejected the applicant companies’ appeal noting, inter alia , that they should lodge a civil claim to protect their property rights. The applicant companies subsequently used the civil remedy, but their claims were rejected on the grounds that it did not appear from the case files that the companies’ seized goods did not belong directly or indirectly to G. The seizure of the applicant companies’ property and bank accounts remains in force because the proceedings before a trial court, to which the case was referred after the investigation had been completed, are still ongoing. The applicant companies complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention that the seizure of their property and bank accounts was excessive as the value of seized goods significantly exceeded the pecuniary damage alleged by V. They also argue that the seizure constitutes an unlawful interference with their right of property, since they were not accused and did not have any other procedural status in the criminal proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant companies’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? 2.     If so, was that interference lawful and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant companies given the extent of the seizure and its duration (see B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia , no. 42079/12, §§ 43-44, 17 January 2017)? 3.     Furthermore, bearing in mind the procedural obligations contained in Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 and the State’s obligation to ensure in its domestic legal order that the right to property is sufficiently protected by law and that adequate remedies enable the victims of an infringement in this respect to assert their rights (see, mutatis mutandis , Credit Europe Leasing Ifn S.A. v.   Romania , no. 38072/11, § 78, 21 July 2020), did the applicant companies have a reasonable opportunity to present their cause to the competent authorities in order to effectively challenge the measures infringing their right of property?   APPENDIX Application no. 10935/18 Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth/Registration date Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location 10935/18 Inter Trade Investment Company S.R.L. and Others v. the Republic of Moldova 16/02/2018 INTER TRADE INVESTMENT COMPANY S.R.L. 2006 Chișinău Moldovan F.P.C. CLASIC SV S.R.L. 1994 Chișinău Moldovan S.C. DISCOVERY TRAVEL S.R.L. 2003 Chișinău Moldovan S.C. TURBILON TEH S.R.L. 2005 Chișinău Moldovan Victor MUNTEANU Chișinău