NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

For the reasons detailed in the above judgments, it concluded that the failure to enforce the final judgment constituted a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 1171 The same was also the result in the case of Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova . 1172 In the case of FoundationHostel for Students of the ReformedChurch and Stanomirescu v. Romania , 1173 however, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants in this case had both obtained final judicial decisions requiring Romania to demolish buildings, value and mark trees, or pay compensation. Nonetheless, despite their efforts, the orders were either not complied with or were only complied with after delays. The breach was derived from the authorities’ failure to comply with final domestic decisions on time or at all. 2.11.4 Breach of the principle of legal certainty The Court, in its judgments, has also found an infringement of the right to property when, by the quashing of a final judicial decision, a national court undermined the principle of legal certainty. In the case of Agrotehservis v. Ukraine , 1174 the Court found a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, because the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions had been violated as a result of the quashing of the final and binding court decision in its favour. The Court observed that by using the supervisory review procedure to set aside the judgment of 10 April 1998, the Presidium of the Ukrainian Highest Arbitration Court infringed the principle of legal certainty and the applicant’s ‘right to a court’ thereunder. It noticed that a judgment debt may be regarded as a ‘possession’ for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Quashing such a judgment after it has become final constitutes an interference with the judgment beneficiary’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of that possession. 1175 Furthermore, the fact that the applicant’s claims were ultimately satisfied does not by itself remove the effects of the legal uncertainty which the applicant endured after the final judgment of 10 April 1998 was quashed, given that Ukraine did not offer any compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the quashing. Another applicant company complained of an infringement of the principle of legal certainty and alleged a violation of its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions in the case of Asito v. Moldova (no. 2) . 1176 Here, by final judgment of the Moldovan Supreme Court of Justice in 2005, the company was obliged to pay a certain amount of debt (MDL 882,588). The creditor was not satisfied with this decision and sought amendment to the final judgment, stating that the court had erroneously awarded M. only MDL 882,588, whereas the sum originally in dispute 1171 Euromonitor. Issue 4 (13), Edition III Implementation of reforms initiated accordingly to EU-Moldova, Assessment of progress in October-December 2008, p. 10. 1172 Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova , no. 39745/02, 3 April 2007. 1173 Foundation Hostel for Students, cited above. 1174 Agrotehservis v. Ukraine , no. 62608/00, 5 July 2005. 1175 Ibid. , § 45. 1176 Asito v. Moldova (no. 2) , no. 39818/06, § 3, 13 March 2012.

222