CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 décembre 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 }   Communicated on 19 December 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 71130/13 GOSPODĂRIA ȚĂRĂNEASCĂ CHIPER TERENTI GRIGORE against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 26 October 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the withdrawal of a licence to operate a quarry due to the applicant company’s alleged failure to comply with the legislation governing the extraction of minerals. 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. The first instance court found in favour of the applicant company but the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice. 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 court proceedings were not fair. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   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)?   2.     The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.