Gemenii PDF

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
GOVERNMENT AGENT
No. 06/3518 Chisinau, 11 May 2020
sent by e-transmission only
Mr. Stanley NAISMITH

Section II Registrar
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
COUNCIL OF EUROPE | CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
67075 STRASBOURG Cedex, France
Application no. 1988/06

Ojog and Others v. the Republic of Moldova
Honourable Registrar,
Hereby, in the framework of exceptional measures – by means of two consecutive extensions of the
time-limits allotted by the Court for pending proceedings, until 15 June 2020 – taken by the Court in the
context of the global health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government, relying on Rules 80
and 81 of the Rules of the Court, kindly ask the Court to rectify several factual mistakes, and, accordingly, to
revise the calculation under Article 41 of the Convention, in the judgment rendered on 18 February 2020 in
the above case.
At the outset it shall be noted that by its letters dated 7 March 2017 and 25 January 2019, the
Court requested factual information it needed to assess several circumstances and facts of the present
case. The Government submitted the sought information by limiting themselves to the Court’s questions
relying on the applicants bona fide and accurate submissions. The Government also drew the Court’s
attention to several inadvertencies admitted by the applicants and to their somewhat biased and
consistently misleading positions, in the hope that those explanations would contribute to a precise
calculation of the applicants’ shares and interests in Gemeni SA. However, the Government wish to draw
the Court’s attention to the following details, which had been omitted in its judgment dated 18 February
2020 in the above case as to the application of Article 41 of the Convention as a result of the principal
judgment of 13 December 2011. The Government underline that the details provided in this letter were not
known and could not reasonably have been known to the Government at the moment of delivery of the
principal judgment of 13 December 2011 or of the judgment on just satisfaction of 18 February 2020.
Therefore, taking account of the information enclosed hereto and the necessity to execute the
judgment within three months from the moment of its becoming final, the Government kindly ask the
Court to give priority to the examination of the present request, to rectify and revise the judgment in the
above case, and to reconsider the amount of compensation for the violation found in the principal
judgment, as well as to establish another time-limit for the execution of the above judgment.
Yours faithfully,
Oleg ROTARI
Government Agent
Enc.
MD-2012, Chisinau, 82, 31 August 1989 str., tel.: +373 (22) 20 14 42, fax: +373 (22) 23 47 97, www.agent.gov.md
Application no. 1988/06 | Ojog and Others v. the Republic of Moldova
Government’s submissions under Rules 80 and 81 of the Rules of Court
PROCEDURE
1. The Court published its principal judgment in the present case on 13 December 2011, and
reserved the question on the application of Article 41 of the Convention in whole since it was not
ready for decision.
2. By its subsequent judgment of 18 February 2020 in the present case, the Court held, inter
alia,
(a) that the respondent State is to return to the applicants jointly, within three months from the date on which the
judgment becomes final, in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the parts of the buildings which
still were the applicant’s property immediately before the judgment of 20 July 2005 was adopted, together
with the underlying land, all free from any limitation of the property right, plus any tax that may be
chargeable, against simultaneous transfer by the applicants to the Government of 36.55% of shares in the
“Gemenii” S.A. returned to the applicants after the quashing of the final judgment in their favour;
(b) that, failing restitution of the property as set out under (a) above, the respondent State is to pay the applicants
jointly, within the same period of three months as that referred to under (a) above, EUR 2,120,000 (two
million one hundred and twenty thousand euros), to be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable at the
date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable, against simultaneous transfer by the applicants to the
Government of 36.55% of shares in the “Gemenii” S.A. returned to the applicants after the quashing of the
final judgment in their favour;
(c) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within the same three-month period as that referred to
under (a) above, the following amounts, to be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement:
(i) EUR 1,500,000 (one million five hundred thousand euros) in respect of pecuniary damage;
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRESENT SUBMISSIONS

3. According to Rule 81 of the Rules of Court, a party is entitled – within one month of the
delivery of a judgment – to ask the Court to rectify clerical errors in calculations.
4. Considering that the Court has taken a number of exceptional measures to respond to the
unprecedented global health crisis caused by the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, all time-limits
allotted for proceedings before it were suspended for a month, with effect from 16 March 2020,
and for an additional subsequent period of two months, i.e. until 15 June 2020.
5. For the above reasons, the Government consider that the present submissions are lodged
within the period provided for by Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.
6. Moreover, Rule 80 of the Rules of Court allows the parties to seek revision of a judgment in
case of discovery of facts with a decisive influence for a judgment. The Government note that they
became recently aware of new facts indicating that an important part of the applicants’
submissions (accepted by the Court and taken as a basis for its judgments of 13 December 2011
and 18 February 2020 in the present case, were in fact biased and misleading. The Government
underline that the details provided in this letter were not known and could not reasonably have
been known to the Government at the time when the principal judgment of 13 December 2011
was delivered or at the time when the judgment on just satisfaction of 18 February 2020 was
delivered, for the following reasons. Since the Government had no direct access to the internal
archives of the company at stake, they had to rely on the bona fide character of the documents
presented by the applicants. However, it appeared that the applicants had submitted information
selectively in order to achieve the concealing of several highly doubtful actions, including, inter
alia, the liquidation of a company and the distribution of its property somewhat unilaterally, in
their capacity as minority shareholders. Further, the Government note that the applicants did not
submit reliable information, and the Government did not have ready access to such documents
during the examination of this case.
7. Therefore, the Government are of the opinion that the present submissions are filed within
the timeframe provided for by Rules 80 and 81 of the Rules of Court and, thus, invite the Court to
accept them including for the following reasons.
FACTS WITH A DECISIVE INFLUENCE FOR A JUDGMENT

8. Having reviewed the full text of the Court’s judgment dated 18 February 2020, the
Government have reached the conclusion that the applicants have misled the Court regarding the
fundamental facts of this matter. In § 9 of the impugned judgment the Court mentioned
9. It is clear from the documents in the file that, as of 1 August 2003 the buildings formerly belonging to “Gemenii”
S.A. had the total surface of 9,165.9 sq. m. Of these, 6,524.9 sq.m. were awarded to the applicants in the
judgment of 23 June 2003 (see paragraph 6 above) as upheld by the higher courts. On 18 November 2003 the
applicants sold to a third party (M.S.) the entire building “V” (measuring 3,641.9 sq.m.) and 27.87% (498
sq.m.) of their part of building “A” (items A1 and A2 measuring 1,787 sq.m.) for a total of MDL 2,110,302 (the
equivalent of approximately EUR 133,054 at the time), representing approximately 63.45% of their property in
“Gemenii” S.A. at that moment.
9. This statement based on the applicants’ submissions appears not to be completely correct.
The commercial center Gemeni S.A. consists of 3 main buildings: building A, B and C (building C
known as Russian ‘V’), also known as buildings 2, 1 and 3. Below is the cadastral image (1, 2, 3) and
the cadastral plan (A, B, C) of the three buildings.
%
Immovable Built Cadastral no. Commercial area, m2 commercial
Building A 1949 0100206.018.02 1848 19,20
Building B 1961 0100206.018.01 4698 48,80
Building C 1968 0100206.018.03 3081 32,00
Total commercial areas 9627 100,00
10. The total surface of the three buildings is 9,627 sq. m., and not 9,165.9 sq. m., and,
therefore, the judgment of 23 June 2003 could not have awarded the applicants 6,524.9 sq.m.
11. On the other hand, The applicants (5 individuals) plus two other individuals who are not
applicants (namely Danil Catanoi (died in 2004) and Ojog Ludmila Petru, not to be confused with
applicant Ojog Ludmila Gheorghe) acquired the properties they are claiming in the following
manner: the applicants Roibu Valeria and Roibu Dragos, as well as non-applicant Ojog Ludmila
Petru, acquired the shares in Gemeni S.A. in 1998 from an investment fund managed by Mr. Petru
Madan, husband of Mrs. Stela Madan (referred in the ECHR judgement as S.M.). That acquisition
was heavily criticized by the National Securities Market Commission, as follows:
„The exchange transactions involving physical persons (...) in majority of cases were oriented towards exclusion
from the fund’s portfolio of liquid shares, issued by Gemeni S.A. and other companies, at advantageous conditions
as regards the price, in favor of trusted individuals and purchase of shares of low liquidity issued by other joint
stock companies.”1
12. Hence the applicants became owners of the following shares:
Gemeni S.A. shareholders (2004) Shares Total no. of shares % of total total %
Roibu Valeria (applicant before the 24981 578075 4,32
Court)
Roibu Mihail (applicant before the 57099 9,88
Court)
Roibu Dragos (applicant before the 24588 4,25
Court)
Ojog Ludmila Gheorghe (applicant 42500 7,35
before the Court)
Ojog Igor (applicant before the Court) 42864 7,41 33,22
Catanoi Danil – not an applicant 42500 7,35 40,57
Ojog Ludmila Petru – not an 7390 1,28 41,85
applicant
Other shareholders 336153 58,15 100,00
13. In March 2002, the applicants (5 individuals) plus two other individuals who are not
applicants (namely Danil Catanoi and Ojog Ludmila Petru) holding together 41,85% of the share
capital of Gemeni S.A. (i.e. less than 50%) requested a court to liquidate Gemeni S.A. It has to be
noted that they did not call a general meeting of shareholders of Gemeni S.A. to discuss the
liquidation with the more than 500 other shareholders. Instead, they found a formal reason to file
a clandestine court claim for liquidation.
14. The liquidation of Gemeni S.A. was managed by a liquidation committee, whereas the role
of the court was to validate the decisions of the liquidation committee. The distribution of
properties was validated by the court on the basis of the proposals submitted by the liquidation
committee. The liquidation committee of Gemeni S.A. had only 4 members, two of whom were
applicants Mihai Roibu (also chairman of the liquidation committee) and Ludmila Ojog (secretary
of the liquidation committee).
1
Source: Decision of National Securities Market Commission no. 36/5 dated 27 December 2001 regarding the results
of control of activity of investment fund FINN „Bucuria-Privatinvest”, published in Monitorul Oficial no. 17-19, art. 42,
on 31 January 2002, available online at https://www.legis.md/cautare/getResults?doc_id=79983&lang=ro
15. The Government reiterate that in 2003 Gemeni S.A. had approximately 500 shareholders,
but the properties were distributed only to the Roibu family, the Ojog family and Danil Catanoi,
who together were holding 41,85% of the share capital of Gemeni S.A. (of which the applicants
before the Court were only holding 33,22% of the share capital of Gemeni S.A.).
16. According to the records of the cadastral registry, the title to property was registered as
follows:
Building B
10 July 2003 – Building B
Building B
Cadastral no. 0100206.018.01 + land plot .018
main entrance (built in 1961)
10.07.2003
Ojog Ludmila Gheorghe
Ojog Ludmila Petru
Ojog Evghenia
Ojog Andrei
Ojog Igor
Roibu Mihail
Roibu Valeria
Roibu Ludmila
Roibu Dragoş
Catanoi Danil Total group 41,85%
Gemeni S.A. (approximately 500 58,15%
shareholders)
Total 100,00%
27 July 2003 – Building B
[intragroup sales]
Ojog Ludmila Gheorghe 7,350%

Ojog Ludmila Petru 1,284%
Ojog Evghenia
Ojog Andrei
Ojog Igor 7,410%
Roibu Mihail 9,880%
Roibu Valeria 4,320%
Roibu Ludmila
Roibu Dragoş 4,250%
Catanoi Danil 7,360%
Gemeni S.A. (approximately 58,150%
500 shareholders)
Total 100,004%
12 September 2003 – Building B
[intragroup sales]
Ojog Ludmila Gheorghe 7,350%

Roibu Valeria + Roibu Mihail 1,284%
Ojog Evghenia
Ojog Andrei
Ojog Igor 7,410%
Roibu Mihail 9,880%
Roibu Valeria 4,320%
Roibu Ludmila
Roibu Dragoş 4,250%
Roibu Valeria + Roibu Mihail 7,360%
Gemeni S.A. (approximately 58,150%
500 shareholders)
Total 100,004%
17. The Government highlight the fact that no other individual shareholder of Gemeni S.A. out
of the more than 500 shareholders has received from the hands of the liquidation committee
controlled by the Roibu and Ojog families any portion of Building B.
18. Building A was registered as follows:
12 September 2003 – Building A
Building A
Cadastral no. 0100206.018.02
2 levels next to McD (built in 1949)
12.09.2003
Ojog Igor
Roibu Mihail
Roibu Valeria
Roibu Dragoș Total group 100%
19. The Government stress the fact that no other individual shareholder of Gemeni S.A. out of
the more than 500 shareholders has received from the hands of the liquidation committee
controlled by the Roibu and Ojog families any portion of Building A.
20. On 19 November 2003 the applicants sold to Stela Madan and fund manager Petru Madan
a portion of the Building A.
19.11.2003
Ojog Igor
Roibu Mihail
Roibu Valeria
Roibu Dragoș Total group 72,13%

Madan Petru, Madan Stela 27,87%
Total 100,00%
21. Building C (referred to in the judgment as Building V) was registered as follows:

Building C (also known as ‘V’)
12 September 2003 – Building C
Building C
Cadastral no. 0100206.018.03
located in the back (build in 1968)
12.09.2003
Ojog Igor
Roibu Mihail
Roibu Valeria
Roibu Dragoș Total grup 100%
22. The Government remind that no other individual shareholder of Gemeni S.A. out of the
more than 500 shareholders has received from the hands of the liquidation committee controlled
by the Roibu and Ojog families any portion of Building C.
23. On 19 November 2003 100% of Building C were sold to Stela Madan and fund manager
Petru Madan.
24. The Summary of the separation of Buildings A, B and C could be represented as follows:
25. Therefore, the applicants before this Court (5 individuals) plus two other individuals who
are not applicants (namely Danil Catanoi and Ojog Ludmila Petru), holding together 41.85% of
the share capital of Gemeni S.A., have carved out from Gemeni S.A. 72% of commercial real estate.
At the time when these property manipulations were unwound by the courts in 2005, the
applicants before the Court (5 individuals) were registered as owners of 34% of total commercial
areas of the commercial centre, Stela Madan and Petru Madan were registered as owners of 38%
of total commercial areas of the commercial centre, whereas 28% of total commercial areas of the
commercial centre we recorded as ownership of Gemeni S.A. (despite the liquidation).
26. In § 13 of the judgment of 18 February 2020 the Court mentioned:

13. In conformity with a decision of the National Securities’ Commission of 18 July 2007, the applicants and two
other persons were re-registered as owners of the relevant part of the shares (199,422 shares of the total of 578,075
shares of “Gemenii” S.A.). On 5 February 2010 “Gemenii” S.A. issued additional shares. The applicants did not
participate in this increase of capital and thus their shares currently represent 2.07% of all the shares in the
company. According to the estimations made by private consulting companies, submitted by the Government, the
value of a share in “Gemenii” S.A. varied between approximately MDL 16 in 2012-14 and MDL 39 in 2016-18. The
applicants submitted evidence of a single transaction with shares of “Gemenii” S.A. in 2015, when each share was
sold for MDL 17. On that occasion 47.87% of shares in the company were sold for a total of MDL 95,312,812 (the
equivalent of EUR 5,015,500).
27. It might appear that the decision quoted above is not quite accurate. The applicants plus
two other persons were holding in total 241,922 shares (not 199,422 shares). The above
calculations seem not to take into account the shares of Danil Catanoi (already deceased in 2007).
The shares of Danil Catanoi were never inherited by anyone. In reality, the applicants plus one
other person (Ojog Ludmila Petru, who is not an applicant before the Court) were holding in total
199,422 shares.
Calculation 1
Gemeni S.A. shareholders (2004 list) Shares Total
shares
Roibu Valeria (applicant before the Court) 24981 578075
Roibu Mihail (applicant before the Court) 57099
Roibu Dragos (applicant before the Court) 24588
Ojog Ludmila Gheorghe (applicant before the 42500
Court)
Ojog Igor (applicant before the Court) 42864
Catanoi Danil – not an applicant 42500
Ojog Ludmila Petru – not an applicant 7390
Total 241922
Calculation 2
Gemeni S.A. shareholders (2004 list) Shares Total
shares
Roibu Valeria (applicant before the Court) 24981 578075
Roibu Mihail (applicant before the Court) 57099
Roibu Dragos (applicant before the Court) 24588
Ojog Ludmila Gheorghe (applicant before the 42500
Court)
Ojog Igor (applicant before the Court) 42864
Catanoi Danil – not an applicant 0
Ojog Ludmila Petru – not an applicant 7390
Total 199422
28. The above mistake has led to the miscalculation of the current shares of applicants in the
share capital of Gemeni S.A., which is 1.64% (and not 2.07%). The Government understand that
the shares held by the applicants would have amounted to 2.07% only in case if there had been
seven applicants.
29. After the additional emission of shares, to which the applicants had refused to participate,
the shares had been distributed as follows:
Years 2010-2020 Shares Total shares % of total Total %

Roibu Valeria (applicant before the Court) 24981 11712493 0,21
Roibu Mihail (applicant before the Court) 57099 0,49
Roibu Dragos (applicant before the Court) 24588 0,21
Ojog Ludmila Gheorghe (applicant before the 42500 0,36
Court)
Ojog Igor (applicant before the Court) 42864 0,37 1,64
Catanoi Danil 42500 0,36 2,00
Ojog Ludmila Petru 7390 0,06 2,07
Other shareholders 11470571 97,93 100,00
14. On 31 July 2007 the Territorial Cadastre Service deleted all mentions of the applicants’ property right over
the relevant buildings and registered those buildings as belonging to “Gemenii” S.A.
31. According to the cadastral records these changes were recorded on 1 February 2007.
26. The applicants sought restitution of their part of three buildings that had been awarded to them in the final
court judgment that had subsequently been annulled. They submitted a report by KPMG Romania S.R.L. of14
September 2012, which estimated the value of the buildings and support structures belonging to the “Gemenii”
S.A. at 90,395,856 Moldovan lei (MDL, the equivalent of 5,808,755.8 euros (EUR) at the time) and the value
of the land underneath these buildings at MDL 58,457,364 (EUR 3,756,417.2). According to the report, the
monetary value corresponding to the applicants’ share of 41.85% in the property of “Gemenii” S.A.,
including the buildings and the land underneath, represented MDL 62,295,024 (EUR 4,003,024). The KPMG
report relied on a report made by “Centru de Evaluări Imobiliare S.R.L.” (“the CEI”). It also noted that three
real estate agencies active in the area had estimated the real market value of the same buildings as high as EUR
28,600,000. Moreover, in February 2019 one of the buildings belonging to “Gemenii” S.A. was pledged to
a bank for EUR 9.5 million. Thus, that building alone was worth more than what they claimed for all the
buildings taken from them. The applicants’ final claim for compensation for the value of the buildings lost
was for EUR 5,095,491, after deducing the value of the shares which were returned to them following the
annulment of the judgment in their favour (in their opinion, those shares were worth EUR 204,509).
33. As the Government have proven above, the applicants’ share in the property of “Gemenii”
S.A. was never of 41.85%. The applicants originally held 33.22% in the share capital of Gemeni S.A.
(now 1.64%). As a result of dubious liquidation proceedings administered unilaterally by the
applicants (and validated by the national courts), Gemeni S.A. and its over 500 shareholders lost
title to 72% of its commercial areas.
34. Moreover, At the time when the property manipulations were unwound by the national
courts in 2005, the five individual applicants before the Court were registered as owners of 34% of
total commercial areas of the commercial centre, Stela Madan and Petru Madan were registered
as owners of 38% of total commercial areas of the commercial centre, whereas 28% of total
commercial areas of the commercial centre we recorded as ownership of Gemeni S.A. (despite of
liquidation). The Government kindly draw the Court’s attention that the shares returned to the
applicants before the Court following the annulment of the judgment in 2005 only represented
33,22% of the value of Gemeni S.A.
35. The applicants’ opinion that in the years 2005-2007 a block of shares of 33,22% of the total
capital of Gemeni S.A. was worth only EUR 204,509, would mean that 100% of Gemeni S.A. was
worth approximately EUR 600,000. Their opinion clearly contradicts the multimillion-euro claims
brought by the applicants and could barely determine any court to award them such a high
compensation for pecuniary damage.
36. Hence, the Government consider that the statement that in February 2019 one of the
buildings belonging to “Gemenii” S.A. was pledged to a bank for EUR 9.5 million, leading to the
conclusion that one building alone (out of three buildings) was worth more than what the
applicants claimed for all the buildings taken from them, was rather interesting. According to the
cadastral records, the mortgage in favour of a bank for a 9.5M euro loan was registered on all
buildings of Gemeni S.A. (also including all 3 main buildings .01, .02 and .03), as well as the
underlying and adjacent land.
37. However, the value of the loan is in no way an indication of the value of one or more
buildings, but rather an indication that the respective buildings have been placed under a first
priority lien to secure a particular bank debt.

29. Relying on the above-mentioned reports, the applicants claimed a total of MDL 162,247,041 (EUR
10,427,455) in lost profit. They later updated their claim to EUR 15,473,570, referring to the period of time
that had passed since the date of the principal judgment and of their claims for just satisfaction. They added
that after the annulment of the judgment in their favour and the return to them of 41.85% of shares in
“Gemenii” S.A. they had received no benefits from those shares.
39. As the Government stressed above, the applicants alone never received 41.85% of
“Gemenii” S.A. Instead, the applicants have received their original 33.22% in the share capital of
Gemeni S.A. (now 1.64%) in a company that owns 9,627 sq.m. of commercial retail premises.
32. The applicants finally submitted that the sale to M.S. (see paragraph 9 above) concerned only a small part
of their property awarded to them in the judgment of 23 June 2003.
41. This statement would contradict the statement in paragraph 9 of the judgment, according
to which the applicants claimed that the properties sold to S.M. (Stela and Petru Madan) had
represented “approximately 63.45% of the applicants’ property in Gemeni S.A.” at that moment. It
appears that the property that the applicants have transferred onto the Madan family was in fact
larger than the portion of the property that they had kept for themselves. It needs to be reminded
that it was Mr. Petru Madan who has helped the applicants’ families make the original investment
in Gemeni S.A. in the year 1998 in a manner that was heavily criticized by the Moldovan securities
regulator.
44. The Court notes (…) that since February 2019 one building was been pledged to a bank, making it
extremely difficult to reclaim it should “Gemenii” S.A. not repay the debt of EUR 9.5 million (see paragraph
26 above).
43. The Government note that as mentioned above, the statement that in February 2019 only
one of the buildings belonging to “Gemeni” S.A. was pledged to a bank for EUR 9.5 million might
lead to the conclusion that the other two buildings would not be pledged. However, according to
the cadastral records, the mortgage in favour of the bank for a 9.5M euro loan was registered on
all buildings of Gemeni S.A. (also including all 3 main buildings .01, .02 and .03), as well as the land.
45. The Court observes that the property which was still owned by the applicants on 20 July 2005, when the
final judgment in their favour was quashed (but after the sale to M.S. of a part of their property) is clearly
identifiable (see paragraphs 6 and 9 above).
[…]
45. In fact, according to the cadastral records, the property is not “clearly identifiable”, but is
rather identified in the cadastral records as a percentage of the total property.
47. The applicants submitted two expert reports in order to establish the value of their share in the relevant
buildings and their lost profits. The Court notes that the calculations in both these reports were based on the
assumption that, on the date of the quashing of the judgment of 23 June 2003, the applicants owned
41.85% of the property formerly belonging to the “Gemenii” S.A. as decided in that judgment. However,
it already determined that at the time of the quashing of the final judgment in their favour, the
applicants only owned 2,385 sq. m. of the 6524.9 sq. m. originally awarded to them (see paragraph 9
above). That represented approximately 36.55% of the property originally awarded. The Court will
adjust its calculations accordingly.
47. As shown above, the Government consider that the assumption that, on the date of the
quashing of the judgment of 23 June 2003, the applicants owned 41.85% of the property formerly
belonging to the “Gemeni” S.A. is not completely accurate since the applicants’ submissions as to
their shares held in certain portions of real estate are inconsistent with the cadastral records (see
§§ 25 and 34 above). The Government are of the opinion that the Court might consider readjusting
any calculations in that respect.
51. Given the fact that the shares which the applicants obtained after the quashing of the final judgment
are worth approximately EUR 204,509 (see paragraph 26 above, unrebutted in this respect by the
Government), it is obvious that their value is much smaller than the value of the buildings which the applicants
lost.
49. This assertion would create the impression that the estimate that in the years 2005-2007 a
block of shares of 33,22% of the total capital of Gemeni S.A. was worth only EUR 204,509, which
mathematically would mean that 100% of Gemeni S.A. was worth approximately EUR 600,000.
This statement of the applicants clearly contradicts the multimillion-euro claims brought by them
against the Government. This discrepancy in the applicants’ approach of the very core of the issue
at stake had a direct impact on the amount of the just satisfaction amount awarded to them by
the Court against the Government, in whose opinion that amount has to be decreased
considerably.
50. In §§ 52 and 56 of the judgment of 18 February 2020 the Court mentioned:
52. In either case, whether this part of the property is returned to them or a monetary equivalent is paid, the
applicants will have to transfer to the Government 36.55% of their shares in the “Gemenii” S.A. which
was returned to them as part of the enforcement of the judgment of 25 January 2007.
56. (…) Moreover, it is not the role of the Court to recalculate all the sums submitted in order to
ascertain the necessary data (see, for instance, Žáková v. the Czech Republic (just satisfaction), no. 2000/09,
§ 45, 6 April 2017).
51. The Government have to reiterate that the applicants never owned 36.55% of the shares in
“Gemeni” S.A. returned to them as part of the enforcement of the judgment of 25 January 2007,
due to the miscalculations related to the real surface of the commercial premises. What the Court
really meant is that the Government have to either return the buildings or pay EUR 2,12 million in
return for the applicants’ actual total shares of 1.64% in “Gemeni” S.A. Based on this calculation, it
would result that the total value of “Gemeni” S.A. would amount to some EUR 130 million. It might
appear unfair to place the burden of paying EUR 2.12 million in return for only 1.64% of the shares
in “Gemeni” S.A. actually and currently owned by the applicants. The Government recall that it
was the applicants’ choice to disregard their participation at the additional emission of shares back
in February 2010, which they finally refused.
58. Having regard to the materials in the file and deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards the
applicants jointly EUR 1,500,000 for the loss of earnings.
53. Bearing in mind that in the Government’s opinion the applicants’ aggregate of shares has
to be recalculated, it might not be wrong to assume that the eventual loss of earnings could be
reconsidered, based on the above information, whereas that amount might also deserve
additional equitable attention in light of the various miscalculations due to the misleading and
erroneous facts submitted by the applicants.
59. The Court concludes that, as a result of the breach of the applicants’ rights established in the principal
judgment, they were deprived of their property, namely 2,385 sq. m. (items B1 and B11 within building B,
measuring 1,096 sq. m. and parts of items A1 and A2 in building A, measuring 1,289 sq. m. (see
paragraph 43 above). The value of this property, if not returned to the applicants, was estimated based on the
materials submitted by the parties at EUR 2,120,000. In addition, the applicants were caused damage from
their inability of renting out the property mentioned above, amounting to EUR 1,500,000.
55. In the Government’s opinion, since the they have shown above that the applicants could
not have owned such property as mentioned in the Court’s judgment of 18 February 2020, they
would welcome a recalculation. Lastly but yet importantly, the inability of the applicants to rent
out the property was replaced by the ability of “Gemeni” S.A. to rent it out. Therefore, this burden
could not be put solely on the Government since the applicants themselves have been
shareholders in “Gemeni” S.A. up to date.
IN CONCLUSION
Based on the above information, which contradicts many of the applicants’ submissions,
the Government kindly ask the Court to rectify and revise the judgment in the above case, and to
reconsider the amount of compensation for the violation found in the main judgment.
Oleg ROTARI
Government Agent

Gemenii PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gemenii PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

Mr. Stanley NAISMITH

Application no. 1988/06

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRESENT SUBMISSIONS

FACTS WITH A DECISIVE INFLUENCE FOR A JUDGMENT

12. Hence the applicants became owners of the following shares:

10 July 2003 – Building B

27 July 2003 – Building B

Ojog Ludmila Gheorghe 7,350%

12 September 2003 – Building B

Ojog Ludmila Gheorghe 7,350%

12 September 2003 – Building A

Roibu Dragoș Total group 72,13%

21. Building C (referred to in the judgment as Building V) was registered as follows:

12 September 2003 – Building C

26. In § 13 of the judgment of 18 February 2020 the Court mentioned:

Years 2010-2020 Shares Total shares % of total Total %

30. In § 14 of the judgment of 18 February 2020 the Court mentioned:

32. In § 26 of the judgment of 18 February 2020 the Court mentioned:

38. In § 29 of the judgment of 18 February 2020 the Court mentioned:

44. In § 45 of the judgment of 18 February 2020 the Court mentioned:

You might also like