CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 mars 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 15 March 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25676/12 F.P.C. ȘTEFSOTRA S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 13 March 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 1996 the applicant company purchased a TIR carnet. According to the TIR Convention of 1975, the carnet was guaranteed with a sum of 5,999   United States Dollars deposited by the carnet holder with the Moldovan International Association of Transporters (MIAT). In 2004 the applicant company obtained a document from MIAT stating that there were no claims against it. Since the applicant company ceased its transportation activities, in 2008 it requested from MIAT the return of the guarantee money. However, it was informed that in view of some irregularities committed by the applicant and discovered by the Ukrainian customs back in 1999, the guarantee money could not be returned. The applicant initiated a court action against MIAT and argued, inter alia , that according to Article   11 of the TIR Convention there was a limitation period of one year to claim compensation for the irregularity imputed to it. The applicant also argued that the general statute of limitations under Moldovan law was three years and that the MIAT had refused to present it with evidence proving the irregularities discovered by the Ukrainian customs authorities in 1999. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the proceedings were not fair because the courts failed to apply the statute of limitations and because they failed to oblige the MIAT to produce a copy of the findings of the Ukrainian customs office of 1999. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Ipteh SA and Others v. Moldova , no. 35367/08, 24   November 2009)? 2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?