Unistar Ventures GmbH v. Moldova (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 94

February 2007

Unistar Ventures GmbH v. Moldova (dec.) - 19245/03

Decision 20.2.2007 [Section IV]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Non-enforcement of a final judgment ordering annulment of a joint venture contract creating an airline company, and reimbursement of investments made: admissible

The applicant, a German company, signed a contract in 2000 under which the State-owned airline company Air Moldova was to be reorganised into a Moldovan-German company. The applicant obtained a 49% share for an investment of USD 2.384 million, 51% remaining in the hands of the Moldovan Government represented by the Civil Aviation State Authority (CASA). Following a change in Government, the CASA, by making use of its 51% of the votes at the shareholders’ meeting, unilaterally dismissed the airline company’s chief executive officer. As a result, the applicant brought a civil action against the CASA, which brought its own action against the applicant, seeking annulment of the contract by which the company had been created. In 2002, the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s action while upholding the CASA’s. The contract concluded in 2000 was declared null and void and restitutio in integrum ordered after an audit and accounting control to be carried out by the Government, the Ministry of Finance and the CASA with the participation of the applicant company. The latter’s appeal was dismissed. It was eventually agreed that an audit control be carried out by the National Centre for Expert Analysis, under ministerial control. The report dated 2006 concluded that the applicant had invested USD 2,384 million in the Moldovan-German company, but since that money had been paid as an advance for the purchase of new aeroplanes by the company, it could be repaid only after the aeroplanes had been delivered or the money had been refunded by the seller of the planes. The applicant company has not yet been reimbursed. Before the Court, it complains that the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 2002 violates its right to a fair trial and its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions.

Admissible under Article 6(1) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy