SECOND SECTION
 
 
CASE OF HEROSS LTD v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 58982/12)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
19 May 2020
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Heross LTD v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,
 Valeriu Griţco,
 Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Heross LTD, a company incorporated in Bulgaria (“the applicant”), on 31 August 2012;
the decision to give notice to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 19 May 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 58982/12) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Heross LTD, a company incorporated in Bulgaria (“the applicant company”), on 31 August 2012. 2. The applicant company was represented by Mr A. Bivol, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari. 3. The applicant company alleged, in particular, that a final judgment in its favour had been quashed after being wrongfully reviewed. 4. On 13 April 2018 notice of the application was given to the Government. 5. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a committee. Having considered the objection, the Court rejects it. INTRODUCTION
6. The case concerns the misuse of the review procedure resulting in the wrongful quashing of a final judgment in favour of the applicant company. It raises problems under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE FACTS
7. By a final judgment of 27 December 2000, the Chişinău Economic Court ordered V., a company, to pay the applicant company 118,527.58 United States dollars and 43,914.38 Moldovan lei. 8. On 8 September 2010 a State-owned company, A. – which was also a creditor of V. by virtue of another unrelated judicial decision and which had not been involved in the proceedings between V. and the applicant company – lodged a request for review of the judgment of 27 December 2000. It asserted that new information had become available to it which justified the revision of that final judgment. According to A., the applicant company’s claim had been upheld despite there being no evidence that it had paid court fees. Moreover, the case file did not contain evidence that the applicant company had provided the originals of the documents submitted in support of its claim. No translator had been involved in the proceedings and a criminal investigation had been initiated against the owner of the applicant company in connection with allegations that the contract between it and another company had been forged. 9. On 22 March 2011 the Economic Court granted the above-mentioned request for review, quashed the judgment of 27 December 2000 and ordered the reopening of the proceedings. The court endorsed the reasons relied upon by company A. in its request for review. It also ruled that its decision was final and could not be challenged. 10. On 2 March 2012 the Economic Court decided to terminate the reopened proceedings between the applicant company and company V. as the latter had ceased to exist on 25 March 2009 as a result of insolvency proceedings. 11. The applicant company challenged the decisions of 22 March 2011 and 2 March 2012. It argued, inter alia, that the review of the judgment of 27 December 2000 had been an abuse of process and had in fact been an appeal in disguise. 12. On 7 June 2012 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company’s appeal and upheld both decisions. The Court of Appeal held, inter alia, that the review of the judgment of 27 December 2000 had been in accordance with the law and had not been an abuse of process. RELEVANT Legal framework
13. The relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning the review of final judgments read as follows. Article 449
“A request for review shall be granted when:
... (c)  after a judgment has been adopted, new documents have been discovered which were withheld by one of the parties to the proceedings or which could not have been submitted to the court during the proceedings because of circumstances beyond the control of the interested party;
...”
Article 450
A request for review may be lodged:
... (d)  within three months from the date on which the document was discovered – in cases [falling under] Article 449 (c);
...”
14. Under Article 453 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force at the material time, a decision to examine a request for review could be challenged together with the decision on the merits of the case. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
15. The applicant company complained that the quashing of the final judgment of the Chişinău Economic Court of 27 December 2000 had been wrongful and had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...”
Admissibility
16. The Government submitted that in Frunze v. the Republic of Moldova ((dec.), no. 42308/02, 14 September 2004) the Court had held that the quashing of a judgment was an instantaneous act and that, therefore, the six‑month time-limit started running from the date of quashing and not from the moment when the reopened proceedings ended. They observed that in the present case the quashing had taken place on 22 March 2011, whereas the application had been lodged some seventeen months later. They also pointed out that in the decision of 22 March 2011 it had been clearly indicated that it was final and could not be challenged. 17. The applicant company disagreed with the Government and submitted that the application had been submitted within the six-month time-limit. 18. The Court notes that the finding concerning the applicability of the six-month rule in Frunze (cited above) related to the procedure for lodging a request for annulment and not to a request for review. It further notes that, unlike court decisions in annulment proceedings, decisions in review proceedings could be challenged by means of an appeal under Article 453 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 14 above). The Court observes that it was called upon to deal with a similar situation in Sfinx‑Impex S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 28439/05, § 16, 25 September 2012), where it ruled that the six-month time-limit started to run not from the date on which the request for review request had been granted but from the date on which the courts had finally dismissed any appeal against the decision to grant it. The fact that in the present case the Economic Court indicated in its decision of 22 March 2011 that the decision could not be challenged appears to have been a mistake since the superior court did examine the appeal subsequently lodged by the applicant company and dismissed it on 7 June 2012. 19. In view of the above considerations, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection. 20. The Government also submitted that the applicant company had failed to avail itself of the domestic remedy concerning the non-enforcement of final judgments. However, since the applicant company did not complain of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 27 December 2000, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine this argument. 21. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

Outcome for Article 6: violation