Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

JUDGMENT

AMSTERDAM COURT

Private Law Division

case no./cause-list no.: C/13/584194 / HA ZA 15-331

Judgment dated 8 March 2017

in the case of:

1. VICTOR TOPA,
residing in Bad Homburg, Germany; and
2. VIOREL TOPA,
residing in Bad Homburg,
claimants,
conditional counterclaim defendants,
lawyers: P.D. Olden and F. van Buchem;

v.

1. OTIV PRIME HOLDING B.V.,


a private limited liability company,
having its registered office in Amsterdam, the Netherlands;
defendant,
conditional counterclaimant,
lawyers: J.W. Leedekerken and P. de Jong Schouwenburg
2. SOVEREIGN TRUST (NETHERLANDS) B.V.,
a private limited liability company,
having its registered office in Amsterdam;
defendant
lawyers: R.P.J.L. Tjittes and J.C. van Nass.

The claimants are jointly referred to below as Topa et al.; the defendants are jointly referred
to below as OPH et al. (and individually as OPH and Sovereign).

1. The proceedings

1.1 The course of the proceedings is apparent from:

the judgment on the motion, dated 30 March 2016;


the record of the parties personal appearance on 24 November 2016; and
the letter dated 9 December 2016 from B. Schim (Topa et al.s lawyer) in
response to the record.

1.2 Finally, a date was scheduled for judgment to be passed.


C/13/584194 / HA ZA 15-331
8 March 2017 2

2. The facts

2.1 As shareholders or on other grounds (under agreements with third-party


shareholders that give rise to obligations) Topa et al. owned 100% of the shares in
AVB Prim SRL, a Moldavian company, and 54.5% of the shares in Victoria Asigurari
SRL, a Moldavian company (jointly referred to below as the Companies). In their
turn the Companies held 5.76% and 3.88%, respectively, of the shares in
Victoriabank, a Moldavian financial institution.

2.2 V.G. Plahotniuc (Mr Plahotniuc) is the ultimate beneficial owner of the group to
which OPH belongs, the Otiv Group. Otiv Prime Financial B.V., currently named
Generashon Financial BV (Generashon), was a subsidiary of OPH.

2.3 Sovereign is a Dutch trust office and managing director of OPH.

2.4 In judgments passed in 2010 and 2011, the Economic Court in Moldavia found that
the agreements underlying the (indirect) acquisition by Topa et al. of the shares in
Victoriabank, among other parties, were invalid. As a result of those judgments
Topa et al. lost all or part of their indirect shareholdings in, or their entitlement to,
Victoriabank.

2.5 On 11 February 2011 Generashon acquired a 26.75% shareholding in Victoriabank


and on 24 February 2011 an 81.70% shareholding in Victoria Asigurari SRL.

2.6 On 15 December 2011 OPH sold and transferred the shares in Generashon to
Y. Kontievsky for USD 80 million (the Dutch Share Transaction).

2.7 On the grounds of leave granted, Topa et al. levied prejudgment attachment around
21 November 2014 on amounts payable to OPH by ABN AMRO Bank N.V.,
Staalbankiers N.V., Van Lanschot Bankiers N.V., ING Bank N.V., SNS Bank N.V.
and Coperatieve Rabobank Amsterdam en omstreken U.A.

3. The dispute

in respect of the claims

3.1 Topa et al. have requested the Court, by judgment to the extent possible enforceable
at once:

a. to issue a declaratory judgment that OPH et al. have breached Article 1 of the
First Protocol to the ECHR and/or Article 5 of the ECHR, or in any event their
ownership right;
b. to issue a declaratory judgment that OPH et al. have acted wrongfully towards
them;
c. to issue a declaratory judgment that OPH et al. are liable for the loss
consequently incurred by Topa et al.;
d. to order OPH et al. to reimburse the loss incurred by them, to be assessed by the
Court and to be liquidated in accordance with the law; and
e. to order OPH et al. to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the
subsequent costs, plus the statutory interest.
C/13/584194 / HA ZA 15-331
8 March 2017 3

3.2 Topa et al. have based these claims on the argument, briefly stated, that OPH
(and Mr Plahotniuc, among others), by means of a combination of acts, including
influencing the judicial process in Moldavia and effecting the Dutch Share
Transaction, played a part in the wrongful seizure of Topa et al.s (indirect)
shareholding of in Victoriabank in favour of (ultimately) Mr Plahotniuc (the Raider
Attacks). By acting in this manner OPH breached Topa et al.s ownership rights or in
any event intentionally made it impossible for them to seek recourse in respect of
those assets. By cooperating in the Dutch Share Transaction, Sovereign improperly
performed its duties as managing director of OPH or in any event breached its duty
of care. Those actions of OPH et al. allegedly constitute a wrongful act in relation to
Topa et al.

3.3 OPH et al. have filed a defence.

3.4 The parties arguments will be addressed in more detail below, insofar as relevant.

in respect of the conditional counterclaims

3.5 Subject to the condition that it follows from the judgment on the claims that
Topa et al. do not have any claim against OPH, OPH has requested the Court, by
judgment to the extent possible enforceable at once, to lift the attachments levied,
while ordering Topa et al. jointly and severally to pay the costs of these proceedings.

3. The assessment

in respect of the claims

claim 3.1.a (breach of ECHR/ownership right)


4.1 OPH et al. have contested that they were in any way involved in the course of events
alleged by Topa et al. regarding the Raider Attacks in Moldavia. Since Topa et al.
have not provided any further explanation or substantiation of their arguments on this
point in response to that contestation, the requested declaratory judgment that
OPH et al. have acted in breach of the ECHR or of Topa et al.s ownership right will
be disallowed.

claims 3.1.b, 3.1.c and 3.1.d (wrongful act/damages)


4.2 Under Section 3.1 of the Wet conflictenrecht onrechtmatige daad (Wrongful Act
(Conflict of Laws) Act), these claims are governed by Dutch law, being the law of the
state in whose territory the wrongful act took place.

4.3 OPH et al. have argued, among other things, that insofar as any wrongful act took
place, the resulting loss, if any, was not incurred by Topa et al., but rather by the
Companies, and that Topa et al. therefore have no interest in their claim within the
meaning of Section 3:303 of the Dutch Civil Code.

4.4 That defence is successful. In principle, established case law provides that, in the
event of a wrongful act committed by a third party in relation to the company,
shareholders cannot file their own claim for damages against that third party if the
loss consists of a decrease in the value of their shares or those shares becoming
worthless. That rule of law is based on the fact that companies with property
separated from that of their shareholders take part in legal transactions
independently, as legal entities with rights and obligations of their own. Only if it is
argued that a specific standard of due care has been breached by the third party in
C/13/584194 / HA ZA 15-331
8 March 2017 4

relation to the shareholder in his or her private capacity is it possible in that type of
case for the shareholder to file his or her own claim for damages against the third
party. A specific standard of due care in relation to a shareholder may have been
breached, for instance, if the company has been harmed with the preconceived plan
to harm the shareholder in his or her private capacity. In that case a preconceived
plan is required, with the intent also to harm the shareholders interests. In that case
it does not suffice for the claimant to merely argue (in general terms) that that third
party has acted negligently. Additional circumstances must then be argued, such as
intent to harm the shareholder by acting in that manner (see the Dutch Supreme
Court judgment of 2 December 1994, NJ 1995/288 Poot/ABP and the Dutch
Supreme Court judgment of 16 February 2007, ECLI:NL:HR:2007:AZ0419
(Tuinbeheer/Houthoff Buruma).

4.5 Assuming for the sake of argument that OPH et al. acted wrongfully towards the
Companies, Topa et al. cannot claim the loss incurred by the Companies as loss of
their own, in light of the principle set out in paragraph 4.4 above. At most, Topa
et al.s arguments could mean that they have incurred indirect loss, in light of their
position in relation to the Companies. In that case Topa et al. should have argued
(extraordinary) facts and circumstances from which it is apparent that the act of
which OPH et al. are being accused also constitutes an act that was specifically
negligent towards them as shareholders. No such facts and circumstances are
apparent from the arguments that Topa et al. have very summarily explained on this
point. Topa et al.s general argument that the Raider Attacks occurred due to the
actions of OPH et al. and Mr Plahotniuc (among others), as a result of which they lost
all or part of their shareholding, does not suffice. Since no additional circumstances
have been argued, such as intent on the part of OPH et al. to harm Topa et al. as
shareholders in their private capacities, it cannot be assumed that OPH et al. also
breached a specific standard of due care in relation to Topa et al. by acting in this
manner. This leads to the conclusion that Topa et al. cannot file their own claim for
damages against OPH et al. This means that Topa et al. have no interest within the
meaning of Section 3:303 of the Dutch Civil Code in their claims in 3.1.b, 3.1.c and
3.1.d, which claims are therefore disallowed.

4.6 For the record, the Court finds that it is furthermore at least questionable whether the
assumption set out at the beginning of paragraph 4.5 above is correct, since it is
based on the argument that a wrongful act, if any, on the part of Mr Plahotniuc
automatically constitutes a wrongful act on the part of the Dutch companies OPH and
Sovereign. But the mere fact that Mr Plahotniuc was the ultimate beneficial owner of
OPH does not suffice to attribute intent, if any, on his part to OPH, and insufficient
other arguments have been presented to arrive at any other conclusion.

4.7 Topa et al., as the unsuccessful parties, will be ordered to pay the costs of these
proceedings. The costs incurred by OPH and Sovereign are estimated for each of
them at:
court fee 613
legal fees 904 (2.0 points x rate of 452)
Total 1,517

The subsequent costs will be allowed in the manner stated in The decision.

in respect of the conditional counterclaims

4.8 It follows from the decision on the claims that the condition on which the counterclaim
was filed has been fulfilled. It furthermore follows from that decision that it has been
C/13/584194 / HA ZA 15-331
8 March 2017 5

summarily established that the attachment is unfounded; the attachments levied on


amounts due to OPH will therefore be lifted in the manner stated in The decision
below.

4.9 Topa et al., as the unsuccessful parties, will be ordered to pay the costs of these
proceedings. The costs incurred by OPH are estimated at 452 (2.0 points x 0.5 x
rate of 452) in legal fees.

5. The decision

The Court:

in respect of the claims

5.1 disallows the claims;

5.2 orders Topa et al. jointly and severally to pay the costs of these proceedings,
estimated to date on the part of OPH at 1,517;

5.3 orders Topa et al. jointly and severally to pay the costs of these proceedings,
estimated to date on the part of Sovereign at 1,517;

in respect of the counterclaims

5.4 lifts the prejudgment attachment levied around 21 November 2014 on amounts
payable to OPH by ABN AMRO Bank N.V., Staalbankiers N.V., Van Lanschot
Bankiers N.V., ING Bank N.V., SNS Bank N.V. and Coperatieve Rabobank
Amsterdam en omstreken U.A.;

5.5 orders Topa et al. jointly and severally to pay the costs of these proceedings,
estimated to date on the part of OPH at 452;

in respect of the claims and the counterclaims

5.6 orders Topa et al. to pay the costs incurred after the date of this judgment, estimated
at 205, to be increased by 68 in legal fees and the costs of service of the judgment
if Topa et al. fail to comply with the judgment within 14 days after notice of the
judgment is issued and the judgment is consequently served on them;

5.7 declares the cost orders and the lifting of the attachments enforceable at once.

This judgment was passed by C.H. Rombouts, O.J. van Leeuwen and W.M. de Vries,
assisted by J.P. van der Stouwe as the registrar, and was pronounced in public on
8 March 2017.

[signature] [signature]

[stamp: ISSUED AS A TRUE COPY


The Registrar of the Amsterdam Court]

[signature]
Traducerea din limba englez n limba romn

HOTRRE

CURTEA DE JUDECAT AMSTERDAM

Secia Drept Privat

Cauza/dosar nr.: C/13/584194 / HA ZA 15-331

Hotrre din 8 martie 2017

n cauza:
1 VICTOR TOPA,
Domiciliat n or. Bad Homburg, Germania; i
2 VIOREL TOPA,
Domiciliat n or. Bad Homburg, Germania,
reclamani,
pri n cererea reconvenional
avocai: P.D. Olden i F. van Buchem

v.

1. OTIV PRIME HOLDING B.V.,


o societate cu rspundere limitat privat,
cu sediul n Amsterdam, Olanda;
prt,
reclamant n cererea reconvenional,
avocai: J.W. Leedekerken i P. de Jong Schouwenburg
2. SOVEREIGN TRUST (NETHERLANDS) B.V.,
o societate cu rspundere limitat privat,
cu sediul n Amsterdam, Olanda;
prt,
avocai: R.P.J.L. Tjittes i J.C. van Nass;

Reclamanii sunt denumii n continuare colectiv Topa et al; prii vor fi denumii colectiv OPH
et al. (i, n mod individual OPH i Sovereign).

1. Procedura
1.1 La baza pornirii procedurii sunt urmtoarele acte:
Decizia cu privire la cererea prealabil din 30 martie 2016;
nregistrarea declaraiilor personale ale prilor din 24 noiembrie 2016 i;
Scrisoarea din 9 decembrie 2016 de la B. Schim (avocatul lui Topa et al) ca rspuns la
declaraii
1.2 n cele din urm, a fost stabilit o dat pentru pronunarea hotrrii.

2. n fapt,
2.1 n calitate de acionari sau din alte motive (n baza unor acorduri cu tere pri din care
izvorsc obligaii) Topa et al. deineau 100% din aciunile n AVB Prim SRL, o companie
nregistrat n Republica Moldova i 54.5% n Victoria Asigurari SRL, o companie
nregistrat n Republica Moldova (denumite n comun Companii). La rndul lor,
Companiile deineau 5.76% i 3.88% respectiv din aciunile n Victoriabank, o instituie
financiar din Republica Moldova.
2.2 V.G. Plahotniuc (Dl. Plahotniuc) este beneficiarul efectiv al grupului din care face
parte OPH, Otiv Group. Otiv Prime Financial B.V., n prezent Generashon Financial B.V.
("Generashon") este o filial a OPH.
2.3 Sovereign este un trust olandez, director executiv al OPH.
2.4 Judectoria Economic din Republica Moldova a constatat n hotrrile din 2010 i 2011
c acordurile care au stat la baza achiziiei (indirecte) a aciunilor n Victoriabank de ctre
opa et al sunt invalide. Ca urmare a acestor hotrri opa et al. i-au pierdut pachetul de
aciuni deinut indirect sau dreptul n Victoriabank.
2.5 La 11 februarie 2011 Generashon a achiziionat un pachet de aciuni de 26,75% n
Victoriabank i la 24 februarie 2011, un pachet de aciuni de 81.70% la Victoria Asigurri
SRL.
2.6 La 15 decembrie 2011 OPH a vndut i a transferat aciunile deinute n Generashon
ceteanului Y. Kontievsky pentru o sum de 80 milioane dolari SUA ("Tranzacia
olandez cu aciuni").
2.7 n baza autorizaiei acordate, aproximativ pe 21 noiembrie 2014 la cererea lui opa et al.
a fost aplicat sechestru asupra sumelor datorate OPH de ctre ABN AMRO Bank N.V.,
Staalbankiers N.V., Van Lanschot Bankiers N.V., ING Bank N.V., SNS Bank N.V. i
Cooperatieve Rabobank Amsterdam en omstreken U.A.

3. Litigiul

cu privire la revendicri
3.1 Topa et al. solicit instanei, prin hotrre care, n msura posibilitilor, s devin
executorie imediat:
a. s emit o hotrre declarativ precum c OPH et al. au nclcat articolul 1 din Primul
Protocol la CEDO i/sau articolul 5 din CEDO, sau, n orice caz, dreptul lor de
proprietate;
b. s emit o hotrre declarativ c OPH au comis un act nelegitim fa de ei;
c. s emit o hotrre declarativ c OPH poart rspundere pentru pierderile suferite n
consecin de opa et al.
d. s oblige OPH s compenseze pierderile suportate, n conformitate cu valoarea evaluat
de ctre Instan, n conformitate cu prevederile legale; i
e. s oblige OPH s plteasc cheltuielile de judecat, inclusiv costurile ulterioare, plus
dobnzile legale.
3.2 opa et al. i bazeaz aciunea pe argumentul c, rezumnd, OPH (printre alii, Dl.
Plahotniuc), prin intermediul unei succesiuni de aciuni, inclusiv influenarea procesului
judiciar n Republica Moldova i efectuarea Tranzaciei Olandeze cu Aciuni, ar fi jucat
un rol decisiv n sechestrarea ilicit a participaiei (indirecte) a lui opa et al n
Victoriabank n favoarea (n final) a dlui Plahotniuc ("Atacuri Raider). Acionnd n
acest mod OPH ar fi nclcat dreptul de proprietate al lui opa et al. i ar fi comis un act
ilegal fa de ei. Prin cooperare n Tranzacia Olandez cu Aciuni, Sovereign i-ar fi
nclcat obligaiile de director executiv al OPH sau ar fi nclcat n orice alt mod
obligaiile sale de diligen corespunztoare. Aceste aciuni ale OPH et al ar constitui un
act nelegitim n raport cu Topa et al.
3.3 OPH a depus o cerere de aprare
3.4 Argumentele prilor vor fi descrise n mai multe detalii n continuare, n msura n care
sunt relevante

cu privire la cererea reconvenional


3.5 Sub rezerva condiiei ca din hotrrea privind revendicrile ar rezulta c opa et al nu au
drept la nicio pretenie mpotriva OPH, OPH a solicitat Instanei, prin hotrre n msura
n care este posibil executorie imediat, s anuleze sechestrul aplicat, obligndu-l n
acelai timp pe Topa et al s plteasc n mod solidar cheltuielile de judecat

4. Aprecierea instanei
revendicarea 3.1.a (nclcarea CEDO/dreptului de proprietate)
4.1 OPH et al. au negat orice implicare n evenimentele invocate de Topa et al n contextul
Atacurilor Raider din Republica Moldova. Avnd n vedere c Topa et al nu au oferit
alte explicaii i dovezi n aceast privin, hotrrea declarativ solicitat precum c
OPH et al ar fi nclcat CEDO sau dreptul de proprietate al lui Topa et al va fi respins.
Revendicrile 3.1 b, 3.1 c i 3.1.d (act nelegitim/pagube)
4.2 n conformitate cu Art. 3.1 din Wet cinflictenrecht onrechtmatige daad (Legea privind
aciunile cu rea voin (Conflict dintre legislaii), aceste revendicri sunt reglementate de
legislaia olandez, n calitatea acesteia de legislaie a statului n care ar fi avut loc
pretinsul act neligitim.
4.3 OPH et al. au argumentat, printre altele, c n msura n care orice act nelegitim ar fi avut
loc, pierderile rezultate, dac i au existat, nu au fost suportate de opa et al., ci mai
degrab de ctre Companii, i c opa et al. prin urmare nu au nici un interes n cererea
lor, n sensul seciunii 3:303 din Codul civil olandez.
4.4 Acest argument este considerat acceptabil. n principiu, jurisprudena consacrat prevede
c, n cazul unui act nelegitim comis de ctre un ter n raport cu o companie, acionarii nu
pot depune propria lor cerere de daune-interese mpotriva acelei tere pri n cazul n care
pierderea const ntr-o scdere a valorii aciunilor lor sau dac aciunile devin lipsite de
valoare. Aceast norm de drept se bazeaz pe faptul c societile cu proprietate separat
de cea a acionarilor lor particip la operaiunile juridice n mod independent, n calitate
de persoane juridice cu drepturi i obligaii proprii. Numai n cazul n care se susine c un
anumit standard de diligen corespunztoare a fost nclcat de ctre ter n raport cu
acionarul n calitatea sa privat n acest tip de caz, acionarul i-ar putea depune propria
sa cerere de daune interese mpotriva terei pri. Un standard specific de diligen n
legtur cu un acionar poate s fi fost nclcat, de exemplu, n cazul n care compania a
fost prejudiciat printr-un plan preconceput de a duna acionarului n calitatea sa privat.
n acest caz, trebuie s existe un plan preconceput, cu intenia de a duna intereselor
acionarului. n cazul respectiv, nu este suficient ca reclamantul doar s susin (n
termeni generali), c partea ter a acionat cu neglijen. n acest caz trebuie s fie
invocate circumstane suplimentare, cum ar fi intenia de a duna acionarului, acionnd
n acest mod (a se vedea hotrrea Curii Supreme Olandeze din 2 decembrie 1994, NJ
1995/288 Poot/ABP i Hotrrea Curii Supreme Olandeze din 16 februarie 2007, ECLI:
NL: HR: 2007: AZ0419 (Tuinbeheer / Houthoff Buruma).
4.5 Dac presupunem, de dragul argumentului, c OPH et al au acionat n mod ilegitim n
raport cu Companiile, Topa et al. nu pot pretinde c pierderea suportat de ctre
Companii ar fi propria lor pierdere, prin prisma principiului enunat la punctul 4.4 de mai
sus. Cel mult, argumentele lui opa et al ar putea nsemna c ei ar fi suportat pierderi
indirecte, avnd n vedere poziia lor n raport cu Companiile. n acest caz, opa et al ar fi
trebuit s invoce fapte (extraordinare) i circumstanele din care s reias c aciunile de
care sunt acuzai OPH et al. reprezint un act care a constituit n mod specific neglijen
fa de ei n calitate de acionari. Astfel de fapte i circumstane nu sunt evidente din
argumentele prezentate foarte sumar de ctre opa et al. cu privire la acest aspect.
Argumentul general al lui opa et al. Precum c Atacurile Raider ar fi avut loc ca urmare
a aciunilor OPH et al. i dlui Plahotniuc (printre alii), n urma crora ei au pierdut toat
sau o parte din participaia lor, nu sunt suficiente. Din moment ce nu au fost invocate
circumstane suplimentare, cum ar fi intenia din partea OPH et al. de a aduce prejudicii
lui Topa et al n calitate de acionari n capacitile lor private, nu se poate presupune c
OPH et al ar fi nclcat un anumit standard de diligen corespunztoare n raport cu
Topa et al. acionnd n acest mod. Acest fapt conduce la concluzia c opa et al nu pot
depune propria lor cerere de daune-interese mpotriva OPH et al. Acest lucru nseamn c
opa et al nu au nici un interes n sensul seciunii 3:303 din Codul civil olandez n
solicitrile lor 3.1.b, 3.1.c i 3.1.d, solicitri care, prin urmare, preteniile n acest sens
sunt respinse.
4.6 Pentru nregistrare, Curtea constat c este cel puin discutabil dac ipoteza prezentat la
nceputul punctului 4.5 de mai sus este corect, deoarece se bazeaz pe argumentul c un
act ilicit, dac este cazul, din partea domnului Plahotniuc constituie n mod automat un
act ilicit al companiilor olandeze OPH i Sovereign. Dar simplul fapt c dl Plahotniuc a
fost beneficiarul efectiv al OPH nu este suficient pentru a atribui intenie, dac este cazul,
din partea lui n raport cu OPH, i alte argumente insuficiente au fost prezentate pentru a
se ajunge la o alt concluzie.
4.7 Topa et al., n calitate de parte perdant, va fi obligat s plteasc costurile procedurii
referitoare la aciune. Costurile suportate de OPH i Sovereign sunt estimate pentru
fiecare dup cum urmeaz:
Taxa judiciar EUR 613
Cheltuielile instanei EUR 904 (2.0 puncte x rata de 452)
Total EUR 1517
Costurile suplimentare vor fi aprobate n modul descris n Hotrre

cu privire la cererea reconvenional


4.8 Din decizia cu privire la revendicri ar rezulta c condiia pe care s-a bazat cererea
reconvenional a fost ndeplinit. De asemenea, prin decizie s-a constatat c sechestrul
este nefondat. Prin urmare, sechestrul aplicat asupra sumelor datorate OPH va fi anulat n
modul descris n Hotrrea de mai jos
4.9 Topa et al, n calitate de pri perdante, vor fi obligate s plteasc cheltuielile judiciare
aferente acestei proceduri. Costurile suportate de OPH se estimeaz la EUR 452 (2.0
puncte x 0.5 x rata EUR 452)

5. Hotrrea
Instana
cu privire la cererea de baz
5.1 Respinge cererea reclamanilor
5.2 Oblig pe Topa et al. s plteasc n mod solidar costurile aferente aciunii, estimate la
momentul deciziei la 1517, suportate de OPH;
5.3 oblig pe opa et al s plteasc n mod solidar cheltuielile de judecat suportate de
Sovereign, estimate la 1517

cu privire la cererea reconvenional


5.4 se anuleaz sechestrul aplicat pe 21 noiembrie 2014 asupra sumelor datorate de OPH
ctre ABN AMRO Bank N.V., Staalbankiers N.V., Van Lanschot Bankiers N.V., ING
Bank N.V., SNS Bank N.V. i Cooperatieve Rabobank Amsterdam en omstreken U.A.
5.5 oblig pe Topa et al s plteasc n mod solidar cheltuielile de judecat suportate de OPH
estimate la momentul emiterii prezentei la EUR 452;

cu privire la cereri i cereri reconvenionale


5.6 oblig pe Topa et al s plteasc cheltuielile suportate dup data emiterii acestei hotrri,
estimate la EUR 205, n cretere cu EUR 68 pentru taxele judiciare i cheltuielile aferente
executrii hotrrii n cazul n care Topa et al nu vor respecta decizia n termen de 14 zile
de la pronunarea hotrrii i notificrii acesteia;
5.7 declar costurile i anularea sechestrelor pltibile imediat

Aceast hotrre este pronunat public de C.H. Rombouts, O.J. van Leewen i W.M. de Vries,
asistai de J.P. van der Stouwe n calitate de grefier la 8 martie 2017.
[semntura]
[semntura]

[tampila: COPIA CORESPUNDE ORIUGINALULUI


Registru Curtea Amsterdam
[semntura]

Оценить