The withdrawal of licenses for airlines without sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness, violates the right to property
JUDGMENT
Tiramavia S.R.L. and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (applications nos. 54115/09, 55707/09, and 55770/09)
SUMMARY
Airlines and certificates. Withdrawal of licenses for three airlines due to their irregularities under the EU and their travel to destinations prohibited by national law. Not providing sufficient guarantees against arbitrary actions and breach of the right to property.
PROVISION
Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant companies, Tiramavia S.R.L., Valan International Cargo Charter S.R.L., and Grixona S.R.L., are three air transport companies incorporated in Moldova. The case concerned the withdrawal of their air operating certificates in 2007. In June 2007 the local regulator, the Civil Aviation State Authority (CASA), asked the applicant companies to address irregularities found by an EU safety report. However, on 21 June the CASA proceeded to withdraw all three companies’ operating certificates. It found that some European airports had expressed worries about Tiramavia’s aircraft and that the other applicant companies flew to various risky destinations, in spite of a ban imposed on those destinations. It had previously banned Moldovan carriers from flying to Iraq and Afghanistan, although that order was not due to come into effect until July 2007. The courts upheld the CASA’s decisions. The applicant companies complained in particular about the withdrawal of their operating certificates under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Aviation authorizations/certificates of the applicant companies constituted ‘possession’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention and their deprivation constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possession.
To justify a measure constituting a control of use, it must be lawful and be in favor of the ‘general interest’. The measure must also be proportionate to the objective pursued.
The Court considers that the first applicant company could reasonably expect that it would not suffer adverse effects if it complied with the directives within a specified time-limit. However, despite the instructions given and the clear deadlines, CASA revoked the air carrier’s first airline license before it had the opportunity to comply. With regard to the second and third applicants, they did not have the opportunity to be heard and examines by CASA prior to the revocation of their aviation certificates and the national courts did not explain the basis on which they found that the companies did not comply with the present prohibition, since it had not yet entered into force at the time of the revocation.
The Court concluded that the interference with the applicants’ assets in the form of the withdrawal of operating certificates did not contain sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness and was therefore not lawful within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 contract. There has therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Just satisfaction: 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses to each of the applicant companies (echrcaselaw.com editing).
