The portal www.rupor.md reported that Seksimp Group SRL is a company with Slovenian capital, specializing in agribusiness, animal husbandry and investments in processing of agricultural products. It was founded in 2009 by businessman Blaž Svetek, a citizen of Slovenia, and developed an agro-industrial complex in Dubasari district. It owned 22 hectares of farmland for fodder production, as well as 10 production infrastructure facilities for animal fattening and related services.
Based on a conflict with local partners, one of them sued Seksimp Group SRL. The trial took place without due notice and without the presence of the defendant. Despite this, the court of first instance ruled in favor of the plaintiff, without a detailed analysis of the evidence or the proportionality of the compensation sought.
On the basis of the judgment, an enforcement procedure was promptly initiated, during which the entire property of the company was auctioned and sold – without notice to the owner or the possibility to appeal the execution.
When the Slovenian company accidentally learned of the loss of all its assets, it requested a review of the case and appealed the decision to the Chisinau Court of Appeal, where the judges were headed by Domnica Manole, the current president of the Constitutional Court.
However, both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice of Moldova subsequently rejected the Slovenian investor’s complaints. According to the ECHR, without detailed motivation for their decision, which the European court considered as a lack of an effective remedy.
In its decision, the ECHR found that Article 6 of the Convention – the right to a fair trial – had been violated because the national courts had failed to justify their decisions and ignored the arguments of the company’s defense. There was also a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – the right to property – because the authorities failed to provide a meaningful mechanism to protect against abuses resulting in the loss of property.
“The national courts legitimized compensation 20 times the contractual value without assessing its proportionality. Enforcement of the judgment was carried out in the absence of the defendant. This is a flagrant violation of the principles of the rule of law,” the Court notes in its judgment.
Despite this verdict, the ECHR decided to postpone the judgment on compensation, giving the parties 3 months to try to conclude an amicable settlement.
So Logos Press will come back to this story.
