Justice Ministry in favor of amicable settlement of dispute involving Le Bridge
The Ministry of Justice is for an amicable settlement in the case lodged by Le Bridge Corporation LTD SRL at the European Court of Human Rights, Minister of Justice Oleg Efrim said in a news conference. He said that the Ministry will held a contest to select a national or international legal assistance company to represent the Government of Moldova in the suit filed by the company at the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, where it claims damages of €50 million, Info-Prim Neo reports, quoting a communiqué from the Ministry.
According to the communiqué, among the conciliation measures is for the Moldovan Government’s representative at the ECHR to write an application for reopening the judicial procedures whereby the company claims its rights were violated. But for this to happen, the Prosecutor General’s Office should become involved as it is the only institution that can ask the Supreme Court of Justice to reexamine this case and quash the court decisions that affected the rights of the plaintiff company.
The Ministry of Justice reacted this way to the tendentious comments by officials who say the responsibility is borne exclusively by the government authorities, even if they do not possess all the necessary information. Oleg Efrim urged them to refrain from making accusations against the Government as it is the courts that take such decisions.
Le Bridge became the winner of the contest organized by the Ministry of Economy for five duty-free stores and started work at the end of 2009. In the same period, a third company that took part in the same contest asked the Chisinau Economic Court to annul the Ministry of Justice’s decision, invoking Le Bridge lacked the necessary experience and did not meet the eligibility criteria. The court accepted the application, while the Economic Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the decision, declaring the third company as winner. Thus, Le Bridge appealed to the ECHR, arguing a number of provisions of the European Convention were violated.