In what can result the incompetent statement of the official
It, in turn, motivates us as indirect participants of this opposition, to the statement of the vision of the given problem, it is told in a press - company release « Dufreemol ».
the First: the Higher appellate court RM has made the statement
on the substance of the given conflict and has confirmed legality of the taken out decisions on affairs in which disputes of the companies « were considered; Dufreemol » and « Le Bridge Corporation Limited ».
the Second: Thereupon more than the statement of one large legal official that, say, our courts have admitted on these affairs which - what remedial infringements, and it, the official, the requirement to   looks strange; to the General Public prosecutor about intervention in a course of events.
Even it is awkward, but we are urged to remind this official that the item 16 civil remedial codes RM demand strict execution by all persons of the judgements which have entered validity. Besides, it is necessary and to pay attention that the General public prosecutor in our country is independent and independent, submits only to the law.
the Third: the Company « Le Bridge » on the substance of this point in question it was converted with the claim into the International centre on settlement of investment disputes at the World bank (ICSID). On this basis some even more responsible persons in a panic spirit have already come out with the assumption of that who « it is guilty » and to whom « to respond » for « possible loss of business ».
Whence such pessimism? Whence such belief to words g - on Peduraru, the lawyer « Le Bridge » assured fellow citizens in the clear victory?
Dear sirs legal officials and their heads! The desire instantly to give in to unreasonable attacks should not be the first reaction. The first reaction the pressing forward should be sober to analyse a situation. And in this case - to glance in legal documents and, in particular, in the Convention ratified by Moldova on settlement of investment disputes between the states and physical or legal bodies of other states from October, 14th, 1966. And so, in this Convention it is told that consideration of investment disputes in a mode of procedure of reconciliation or arbitration trial is possible, if both parties (hence, and the state Republic Moldova) are converted into the specified arbitration with the written statement about it.
While, as far as we know, Moldova did not do such reference.
And, maybe, intend?
Thereupon allow to remind the officials, hurrying to divide with g - nom Peduraru I a skin of not killed bear, - the company « Le Bridge » has already submitted the reference on August, 17th, 2010 to the International arbitration for ¹ 48027/ 10 in the same subject of dispute, and « to sit » one claim on two litigations does not suppose anywhere: neither in Europe, nor in America.
the Fourth: Our company « Dufreemol » in difference from ICS « Le Bridge » trying to plunder the Moldavian tax bearers for 50 000 000 euros, offers the help.
We are ready at own expense and without the subsequent indemnification of our expenses
to employ the highly skilled foreign lawyer having sufficient experience in the international arbitration courts, including in the European court under human rights, and to charge it representation and protection of fair interests of Republic Moldova. It will help us to achieve truth and, I hope, for a long time to discourage the unfair investors aspiring to enrichment, ward on our market through a back porch, preaching thus dishonesty and blackmail.