CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s289A4F99 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sDC456310 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sA4EC0FBA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   758 13.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] MOLDOVAN COMPANY’S RIGHTS AFFECTED IN PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH IT WAS NOT A PARTY Business Şi Investiţii Pentru Toţi v. Moldova (application no. 39391/04 )   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant company 2,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,550 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English)   Principal facts   The applicant company, Business şi Investiţii Pentru Toţi, is registered in Moldova.   In November 2001 it brought proceedings against another company, I., claiming damages caused by I.’s failure to deliver to it some office space as agreed in a contract the two companies had signed about a year earlier. In February 2003, the applicant company brought separate court proceedings against I. and a state company called M. asking for the recognition of its property rights over the office space, the physical transfer of which it had received in the meantime from I. In 2004 the applicant company requested the court to discontinue the proceedings it had brought in respect of I. and pursued the proceedings for recognition of its property rights against the other defendant   M.   In parallel, the state company M. brought proceedings against, among other parties, company I. and state company L. M. claimed that a 1997 contract concluded between L. and I. for the completion of construction works in a building in exchange for a share of the office space in that building interfered with M.’s rights to part of the building. While the first instance court found in favour of company I., the Supreme Court of Justice (the Supreme Court) upheld entirely the claims of M. in July 2004.   The applicant company asked for a revision of the July 2004 judgment, complaining that it had not been a party to those proceedings, even though its property rights had been affected in them. In September 2004 the Supreme Court rejected this request, finding that the applicant company was not the owner of the building. It noted that the contract between I. and the applicant company had been concluded by I. in bad faith, given the contested ownership situation at the time. The Supreme Court also found that by withdrawing, in April 2004, its claims against I. the applicant company had sought to have the proceedings discontinued in their entirety.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant company complained that its property rights over the office space claimed by another company had been affected by decisions in court proceedings to which it had not been a party. It relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Mihai Poalelungi ( Moldova), judges ,   and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court first noted that I., from which the applicant company had obtained its right over the contested office space, had won at first instance in the domestic court proceedings and that the contract between I. and the applicant company had been valid when concluded.   Concerning the withdrawal by the applicant company of its claims in 2004, the Court found that it had only been made in respect of I. However, the February 2003 set of proceedings concerning the recognition of its property rights over the office space had been brought not only against I. but also against M., which too had had an interest in the disputed building. The 2003 claim against M. had never been examined by the domestic courts. At the same time, by accepting in July 2004 M.’s claims over the disputed part of the building without involving the applicant company, the Supreme Court had pre-judged the applicant company’s claim to the property rights it had over that building.   The failure of the Supreme Court to involve the applicant company in the proceedings that had affected its interest had consequently breached its right of access to court. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Nina Salomon (tel + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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.