Published on 29 September 2025
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 14678/18
NUTSAGROMOL S.R.L.
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 7 March 2018
communicated on 11 September 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged unfairness of tax proceedings.
On 30 June 2015 the State Tax Authority imposed penalties and fines on the applicant company for having violated tax legislation.
The applicant company successfully challenged the Tax Authority’s decision before courts of first and second instances. However, the Supreme Court of Justice reversed the lower courts’ judgments, without having held an oral hearing and, thus, without having given the applicant a possibility to present its case. The Supreme Court of Justice based its decision, among other things, on testimonies of witnesses who had been interviewed in a parallel criminal case brought against the applicant company, as well as on statements given by several individuals to the State Tax Authority, but who had not been heard by the courts involved in the present case.
The applicant company complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the proceedings were not fair because the Supreme Court of Justice acted as a first instance court without conducting a proper hearing, and that the outcome of these unfair proceedings interfered with its property rights.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against it, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, reversing the findings of the lower courts, compatible with the requirements of this provision (see Dan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2), no. 57575/14, §§ 55‑56, 10 November 2020)?
2. Has there been a breach of the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Covalenco v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 72164/14, § 25, 16 June 2020)?