The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found the Government of Moldova guilty of violating the right to a fair hearing and to the protection of property. On March 3, the Court pronounced judgment in the case of businesswoman Eugenia Duca and her daughter Doina Duca versus Moldova. At a news conference at Info-Prim Neo on March 4, Janeta Hanganu, the lawyer for Eugenia Duca at the ECHR, said that the case of Eugenia Duca was started in 1998, together with her former associates in Chris SRL, the Andoni couple. 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 this 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. Eugenia Duca’s lawyer in the national courts Igor Domnicu said that the unanimous decision of the panel of the Supreme Court of Justice shows that the judiciary in Moldova is totalitarian and the important decisions are made only at the instructions of the SCJ’s president or of the presidents of the penal, administrative and economic boards. He said that the judicial system in Moldova should be reformed. The ECHR ascertained that the Andoni couple did not try to repair a judicial error, but to obtain the reexamination of the basic elements of the case, while the SCJ illegally accepted the appeal. Also, the Court considered the acceptance of the application of the Andoni couple as abnormal for the simple reason that they filed an application to the ECHR. The Court in Strasbourg stressed that in a similar situation, in the case of Moldova-Hidromas versus Moldova, the Supreme Court of Justice refused to review a case because it was being examined by the ECHR. In its decision, the ECHR only ascertains the violation of the rights, but does not award damages. At the same time, the Court encourages the sides to reach an amicable settlement within three months. The lawyers say that it is very difficult now to assess the pecuniary damage. Initially, the applicants claimed 150,000 euros for a sold building, 3,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the refunding of the court costs. Eugenia Duca said that she does not aim to obtain damages, but wants that justice is done and the corrupt persons involved in this case be held accountable. “I do not fight for property, but for dignity,” she said. The businesswoman said there was no legal document showing that the Andoni couple became major shareholders of the company. “Instead, there appeared many forged documents, receipts, expert appraisements, false witnesses, corrupt investigators, prosecutors and judges.” Eugenia Duca said that she realized that the legal system in Moldova is a well-planned mechanism, a mafia, a network that expropriates the people and shares the property among its members. When the ECHR founds Moldova guilty, the state pays from people’s pockets. “My case is a creation of the Moldovan justice. It lasted for 11 years. 11 years of ordeal, 11 years on the same case and with the same characters. A case that generated 68 penal and civil cases. 11 years of revision, detention, an illegal arrest, a murder attempt – a grenade thrown into an apartment, an attempt to kidnap the nephew,” Eugenia Duca said. Aspects of this case are now examined by the national courts. Eugenia Duca and her lawyers hope that the ECHR’s decision will influence these trials.