CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7E985A6E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:8pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 17 January 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 53982/11 TEGULUM S.A. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 22 August 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the withdrawal of a licence to operate a quarry due to the applicant company’s inactivity for more than two years. The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the interference with its property right was not lawful and that it was disproportionate with the aim pursued. It alleges that the authorities applied retroactively new legal provisions concerning withdrawal of the licence for inactivity and did not even comply with the imperative requirements of the new legislation when withdrawing its licence. The domestic courts rejected the applicant company’s action against the authorities’ decision. The complaint raises issues similar to those examined in Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova , no. 21151/04, ECHR 2008 and Baroul Partner-A v. Moldova , no. 39815/07, 16   July 2009. The applicant company also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts did not give sufficient reasons for their judgments. QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention?   2.     If so, was the interference in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and was it necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (see Megadat.com SRL v.   Moldova , no. 21151/04, ECHR 2008)?