INTERDNESTRCOM v Moldova - 48814/06 [2012] ECHR 536 (13 March 2012)

INTERDNESTRCOM v Moldova - 48814/06 [2012] ECHR 536 (13 March 2012)

The applicant company had no arguable right to a refund under domestic law, as licence fees were non-refundable and its legal capacity had ceased with deregistration. The domestic courts never recognised such a right. Therefore, Article 6 § 1 was not applicable. The property complaint was inadmissible as it was lodged more than six months after the withdrawal of licences, the relevant act under domestic law.

Citation
[2012] ECHR 536
Parties
Applicant: INTERDNESTRCOM; Respondent: Moldovan Government
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
13 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
application declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Access to Court, Right to Property, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Legal Capacity of Companies, Licensing, Refund of Licence Fees
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Access to Court Right to Property Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Legal Capacity of Companies Licensing +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

INTERDNESTRCOM

Applicant

Moldovan Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant company had access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the applicant company's right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was violated

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant company had no arguable right to a refund under domestic law, as licence fees were non-refundable and its legal capacity had ceased with deregistration. The domestic courts never recognised such a right. Therefore, Article 6 § 1 was not applicable. The property complaint was inadmissible as it was lodged more than six months after the withdrawal of licences, the relevant act under domestic law.

Court Disposition

application declared inadmissible