CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 février 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   139 24.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT (JUST SATISFACTION) DACIA S.R.L. v. MOLDOVA     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] dealing with the question of just satisfaction in the case of Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova (application no. 3052/04).   In its principal judgment in the case delivered on 18   March 2008, the Court held that there had been a violation of the applicant company’s rights under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention concerning the annulment of the privatisation of the applicant company’s hotel.   In today’s Article 41 (just satisfaction) judgment, the Court held unanimously that Moldova was to return the Dacia hotel and its equipment, together with the underlying land, to the applicant company, against simultaneous payment by the applicant company to the Government of the sum of 374,299   euros   (EUR). Failing restitution of the hotel, Moldova was to pay the applicant company EUR   7,237,700 for pecuniary damage. The applicant company was further awarded EUR   25,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   6,000 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant company is a four star hotel, the “Dacia”, in Chişinău.   In 1997 a privatisation act was adopted by Parliament and the Dacia hotel, then owned by the State, was auctioned. The company “Selikat-Mix” won the auction and concluded a contract with the Department for the Privatisation of State Property in February 1999. In January 2003 the Prosecutor General’s Office brought court proceedings in the interest of the State against Selikat-Mix and the Department, seeking to annul the privatisation of the hotel and to repay the purchase price to the applicant company. The Prosecutor General later requested the court to designate Dacia   S.R.L. as defendant in the case, given that Selikat-Mix had ceased to exist. On 6   June 2003 the Economic Court of Moldova ultimately accepted the Prosecutor General’s request and delivered a judgment annulling the privatisation on the ground that it had been unlawful. Dacia   S.R.L. was ordered to return the hotel to the State Chancellery and the Ministry of Finance was ordered to pay to the company the initial price it had paid for the hotel, namely 20,150,000   Moldovan   lei   (MDL) (EUR   1,342,590 in October 2004, when the applicant company obtained the last part of that amount).   Following the Court’s judgment of 18 March 2008, Dacia   S.R.L. requested restitution of the hotel and the underlying land. If that were impossible, the applicant company asked to be compensated on the basis of the current market value of the hotel as estimated in the evaluation it had provided to the Court, which amounted to approximately EUR   7,612,000. This sum included the court fees paid in the past by Dacia S.R.L. in the context of the annulment of the privatisation, the money seized from the hotel’s cashier desk on the day when the State took over the hotel, default interest for the delayed payment by the State of the money it had been ordered to pay to the company by the domestic courts for having taken over the hotel, and lost profit for the period during which Dacia S.R.L. could not operate the hotel. The Dacia S.R.L. also submitted evidence to show that the Jolly Allon, a somewhat larger Chisinau hotel situated nearby, was estimated to be worth EUR   11,309,932. This evidence was based on shares of the Jolly Allon which the Government had been publicly trading in May 2008.   The Government considered that Dacia   S.R.L’s claims were exaggerated and unsubstantiated. It submitted a preliminary report on 5 December 2008 according to which the Dacia hotel was worth EUR   2,219,191.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 January 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   The Court first found that it could not take into account the preliminary report submitted by the Government on the value of the Dacia hotel, as it had not contained any calculations or other explanations as to how the sum had been decided. The Court then noted that Dacia S.R.L. had presented a detailed evaluation of the hotel, which had been prepared by an experienced expert who had used three different methods of calculation. It further observed that the applicant company’s estimation of the Dacia hotel had been proportionately consistent with the value of the nearby Jolly Allon hotel. Finally, in the absence of any alternative expert report, the Court found no reason to doubt the reasonableness of Dacia S.R.L.’s claim.   The Court therefore held that the Moldovan Government had to return the Dacia hotel and its equipment, together with the underlying land, to Dacia S.R.L, plus any tax that might be chargeable. In the event that the hotel, land and equipment were returned, the Court held that Dacia S.R.L. had to simultaneously pay EUR   374,299 to the Government, which represented the difference between the money paid by the Government to Dacia S.R.L. for having annulled the privatisation and taken the hotel in 2003, namely EUR   1,264,924, and the amount the Court awarded to Dacia S.R.L. as pecuniary damage in this judgment, namely EUR   890,625.   The Court further held that, failing restitution of the hotel, Moldova had to pay to Dacia   S.R.L, EUR   7,237,700 in pecuniary damage, which included loss of profits amounting to EUR   763,540, court fees and default interest amounting to EUR   98,565, and reimbursement of the amount taken from the hotel’s cashier desk at the time including interest, namely EUR   28,520. In addition, the Court awarded EUR   25,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   6,000 in respect of costs and expenses.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.