CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 mai 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 141 May 2011 Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova (just satisfaction – striking out) - 21151/04 Judgment 17.5.2011 [Section III] Article 37 Article 37-1 Striking out applications Article 37-1-c Continued examination not justified Unilateral declaration made during Article 41 procedure and affording equitable amount in compensation: struck out   Facts – In a judgment of 8 April 2008 (see Information Note no.   107), the Court held that a ruling by the national telecommunications regulatory authority that the applicant company’s licences to operate as an Internet service provider were invalid had violated the company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. The question of just satisfaction was reserved. In August 2010, after failing to reach a friendly settlement with the applicant company, the Government issued a unilateral declaration in which it undertook to pay EUR 120,000 in respect of damage and EUR 10,000 in respect of costs and expenses. The applicant company considered the amount too low and asked the Court to continue to examine the case. Law – Article 37 § 1: The Court could, under certain circumstances, strike out all or part of an application on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wished the examination of the case to be continued. Moreover, there was nothing to prevent a respondent State from filing a unilateral declaration relating, as in the instant case, to the reserved Article 41 procedure. The material before the Court indicated that the bulk of the applicant company’s claimed pecuniary losses did not derive from an activity that had come into existence prior to the withdrawal of the licences, but from plans that had never gone further than anticipation. The applicant company would have needed new licences for the implementation of the business plan that formed the basis of its claim and it was a matter of conjecture whether it would have been able to obtain such licences and, if so, how long it would have taken. That being so, the applicant company’s anticipated income could not be considered a legally protected interest of sufficient certainty to be compensatable. Its claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage and of costs and expenses were excessive. In the light of these considerations and to the amount of compensation offered by the Government, which appeared equitable, the Court was satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and Protocols did not require it to continue the examination of the case. Conclusion : struck out (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes