The case involving Moldovan airline FLYONE represents an “extremely dangerous signal” for the country’s investment environment, according to Cristina Ciubotaru, an anti-corruption expert and former deputy director of the National Anticorruption Center (CNA).
Speaking on the Contrasens program, Ciubotaru discussed the potential consequences of the airline’s decision to initiate international arbitration against the Moldovan authorities and seek approximately EUR 500 million in compensation, ZIUA.MD reports.
According to Ciubotaru, the main issue goes beyond the potential compensation that Moldova could be required to pay. She argues that the fundamental concern is the use of an administrative decision to force shareholders of a private company to give up their ownership interests.
“They were forced, through an administrative decision, to change their shareholding, to dispose of their shares. This means depriving a person of their property rights,” Ciubotaru said.
Concerns Over Possible Pressure on FLYONE
The expert also questioned whether there could be broader reasons behind the pressure on FLYONE, pointing to what she described as a suspicious correlation between actions taken by the authorities and the emergence of a new competitor on Moldova’s aviation market.
“Shareholders are being forced to dispose of their stake in a company, against the background of suspicions that the intention may be to make room for another company to enter the market,” Ciubotaru said.
She stressed that the allegations have not been conclusively established.
“We do not know whether this is the case or not. We will see later. History will show,” she added.
Property Rights at the Center of the Dispute
Ciubotaru argued that, regardless of the specific circumstances surrounding FLYONE, forcing an owner to sell or transfer a stake in a company raises fundamental questions about the protection of property rights in Moldova.
“Who created the problem with property rights in the first place? The state did,” she said, arguing that courts should protect investors when state decisions interfere with their property rights.
She warned that if such rights are not adequately protected at the national level, investors may turn to the European Court of Human Rights, potentially leaving the state and, ultimately, taxpayers responsible for compensation.
Questions Over Administrative Control
Another concern raised by Ciubotaru involves the mechanism through which such measures can be imposed without direct judicial oversight.
She referred to the Council for the Examination of Investments of Importance to State Security, whose decisions can directly affect investors’ rights.
“Outside judicial control, you can be placed on a list of bad actors and, through a decision by a council headed by a political minister, be forced to dispose of your property,” Ciubotaru said.
She argued that this is one of the reasons the FLYONE shareholders turned to international arbitration.
Potential Impact on Moldova’s Investment Image
Ciubotaru warned that the consequences of the dispute could extend far beyond the airline itself.
Moldova is seeking to attract foreign capital and persuade companies to make long-term investments in the country. In her view, a precedent in which the state can administratively interfere with an investor’s ownership rights could undermine those efforts.
“Rather than calling investors whose previous investments in Moldova we do not even know about, Mr. Tofan should be more concerned with ensuring that the administrative mechanisms of this state do not work against investors,” Ciubotaru said.
She described the issue as particularly serious for Moldova’s reputation as an investment destination.
FLYONE Launches International Investment Dispute Proceedings
FLYONE shareholders announced in recent days that they had initiated an international investment dispute settlement procedure against the authorities of the Republic of Moldova.
The shareholders said the move comes amid a dispute that began after Moldovan authorities ordered changes affecting the ownership stakes and control of the company.
The case could therefore become an important test of how Moldova’s investment-protection mechanisms are perceived by both domestic and international investors.