Raider attacks with the assistance of courts – falsified minutes and summonses
Another case of raider attack, with the involvement of a political leader and with the assistance of Moldovan courts, in which the courts falsified minutes and tampered with the summonses:
It further noted that company S.’s claim had not been brought to the applicant company’s attention and that the authenticity and the trustworthiness of the hearing minutes were a matter of serious concern as they bore a case number from the next year and concerned a hearing which the same judge had postponed one day earlier. The Court accepted that the applicant company had not been informed about the hearing of 2 February 2011 before the Chișinău Court of Appeal and therefore had not been given a chance to present its defence in those proceedings.
✎ Here is the ECtHR's Press Release.
On page 94 of the domestic case file there is a form of confirmation according to which the representatives of the applicant company and company Q. confirm having been informed about the next hearing of 2 February 2011, but this form too bears signs of tampering as the handwritten date also appears to have been corrected from ‘02.03.11’ to ‘02.02.11’.
The materials of the case file before the Chișinău Court of Appeal presented clear signs of tampering.
The Court notes next that the minutes of the hearing of 20 January 2011 also present signs of tampering when examined in conjunction with other documents present in the domestic case file.
Moreover, in view of several indications of tampering with the summons and confirmation forms and the fact that the Government did not dispute the applicant’s allegation about that tampering and did not explain the presence of the manual corrections, the Court is ready to accept that the applicant company was never informed about the hearing of 2 February 2011 before the Chișinău Court of Appeal and thus that it was never given a chance to present its defence in those proceedings.
✎ Here is the ECtHR's judgement Theo National Construct S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 72783/11).
(Unimedia's article) Moldovan judges, who falsify the minutes: the ECHR ruled on a case of "raider attack" on a Romanian company, with the involvement of a political leader
PRESS RELEASE
Issued by the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR 316 (2022), 11 October 2022Hostile takeover of Moldovan company with assistance of courts
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Theo National Construct S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 72783/11) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the hostile takeover (“raider attack”) and alleged seizure of possessions of a road construction company in which the applicant company had a 50 percent share, by another of its partner companies, controlled by a Moldovan businessman and leader of a political party, with the assistance of courts and law-enforcement agencies.
The Court found that the court decisions that had led to the applicant company’s loss had been adopted in proceedings that had been conducted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. The State had thus failed in its duty to enable the applicant company to assert its rights effectively and have them enforced.
a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the hostile takeover (“raider attack”) and alleged seizure of possessions of a road construction company in which the applicant company had a 50 percent share, by another of its partner companies, controlled by a Moldovan businessman and leader of a political party, with the assistance of courts and law-enforcement agencies.
The Court found that the court decisions that had led to the applicant company’s loss had been adopted in proceedings that had been conducted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. The State had thus failed in its duty to enable the applicant company to assert its rights effectively and have them enforced.
Excerpts from the Press Release:
The Court accepted that the applicant company had not been informed about the hearing of 2 February 2011 before the Chișinău Court of Appeal and therefore had not been given a chance to present its defence in those proceedings. In reaching that conclusion, the Court noted with concern signs of tampering on the summons forms for the hearing of 2 February 2011.It further noted that company S.’s claim had not been brought to the applicant company’s attention and that the authenticity and the trustworthiness of the hearing minutes were a matter of serious concern as they bore a case number from the next year and concerned a hearing which the same judge had postponed one day earlier. The Court accepted that the applicant company had not been informed about the hearing of 2 February 2011 before the Chișinău Court of Appeal and therefore had not been given a chance to present its defence in those proceedings.
✎ Here is the ECtHR's Press Release.
Excerpts from the ECtHR Judgment:
Domestic courts’ decisions contrary to domestic law, arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable • Failure to address applicant company’s serious allegations of case file tampering and objection concerning time-barred action against it • State’s failure to discharge its duty to set up a proper forum allowing applicant company to assert rights effectively and have them enforced
On page 94 of the domestic case file there is a form of confirmation according to which the representatives of the applicant company and company Q. confirm having been informed about the next hearing of 2 February 2011, but this form too bears signs of tampering as the handwritten date also appears to have been corrected from ‘02.03.11’ to ‘02.02.11’.
The materials of the case file before the Chișinău Court of Appeal presented clear signs of tampering.
The Court notes next that the minutes of the hearing of 20 January 2011 also present signs of tampering when examined in conjunction with other documents present in the domestic case file.
Moreover, in view of several indications of tampering with the summons and confirmation forms and the fact that the Government did not dispute the applicant’s allegation about that tampering and did not explain the presence of the manual corrections, the Court is ready to accept that the applicant company was never informed about the hearing of 2 February 2011 before the Chișinău Court of Appeal and thus that it was never given a chance to present its defence in those proceedings.
✎ Here is the ECtHR's judgement Theo National Construct S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 72783/11).
Comments
Post a Comment