Here’s a breakdown of the Interactiv S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Moldova in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to a fair trial). The case concerned a Moldovan company, Interactiv S.A., which claimed that the Supreme Court of Justice’s decision to overturn lower courts’ judgments was unfair. The ECtHR agreed, noting that the Supreme Court re-examined the facts without an oral hearing, relied on new evidence without giving the company a chance to respond, and provided insufficient reasoning for its decision.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the initial agreement between Interactiv S.A. and the Chișinău Municipal Council (CMC) for the construction of a gas pipeline.
* It details the lower court decisions, which initially favored Interactiv S.A., and the subsequent reversal by the Supreme Court of Justice.
* The ECtHR then assesses the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, referencing established principles on fair trial rights in appellate proceedings.
* The Court emphasizes that while an oral hearing isn’t always required in supreme court cases, it was necessary here because the Supreme Court acted as a court of first instance by re-examining factual issues and considering new evidence.
* The judgment also addresses the lack of opportunity for Interactiv S.A. to comment on the new evidence, violating the principle of equality of arms.
* Finally, the ECtHR finds the Supreme Court’s reasoning to be insufficient, as it didn’t adequately explain its departure from the lower courts’ findings.
* The Court also considered the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) but found it unnecessary to examine it separately, given the findings under Article 6 § 1.
* Regarding Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court rejected the claim for pecuniary damage but awarded Interactiv S.A. compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs/expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* This decision reinforces the importance of oral hearings when supreme courts re-examine factual issues or consider new evidence.
* It highlights the need for parties to have an opportunity to comment on new material presented in court, ensuring equality of arms.
* The judgment emphasizes that supreme court decisions must provide sufficient reasoning, especially when overturning lower court judgments.
**** This decision could be relevant for Ukrainian companies or individuals who have experienced similar issues with the fairness of court proceedings, particularly in cases where higher courts introduce new evidence or re-evaluate facts without providing an adequate opportunity for the parties to respond.
