The plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice Monday put off reviewing its decision of November 2006 for an unidentified period. Over this decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found Moldova guilty in the case of businesswomen Eugenia Duca and her daughter Doina Duca versus Moldova. Igor Domnicu, the lawyer for Eugenia Duca in the national courts, has told Info-Prim Neo that the plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice chaired by president Ion Muruianu accepted the rescheduling application filed by Eugenia Duca’s opponents. They argued that the ECHR decision of March 3, 2009 is not definitive and the Government could appeal it to the Grand Chamber within three months. The lawyer considers that postponing the revision, the plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice broke the law. “The court cannot base its decision on an intention, especially because every rearrangement causes new damage to my client. The Code of Administrative Procedure was also violated as it says that a decision is reviewed when the ECHR finds a violation of the fundamental human rights or freedoms and that the person involved can obtain at least a part of the damages if the decision passed by the national court is quashed,” Domnicu said. Igor Domnicu considers that the plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice intends to postpone the revision of its decision of 2006 until the ECHR decision takes effect and Eugenia Duca will receive her damages. This way, it will not have to cancel the decision whereby she was removed from the administration of her company. The case of Eugenia Duca agaisnt her former associates in Chris SRL - the Andonia couple, was initiated in 1998. The first round of hearings in national courts was held between 1998 and 2000. As a result of these trials, Eugenia Duca won the case and was recognized as the major shareholder of the company. After filing numerous appeals, in 2006 the Andoni couple managed to obtain a review of that decision over a number of reasons that the ECHR later described as groundless. On November 27, 2006, the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) reviewed the final decision of 2000. The Court in Strasbourg found that the quashing of the judgment was a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. “This violation is very serious because it was committed by the entire panel of the Supreme Court of Justice. The fact that all the 49 judges forming part of the panel were accomplices in this violation shows once again how serious the situation in the Moldovan judicial system is,” Janeta Hanganu said.