In such circumstances, the Court concludes that the remedy referred to by the Government was not effective in practice (see, mutatis mutandis, Ciubuc and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 32816/07, § 26, 10 January 2012, and Nikolyan v. Armenia, no. 74438/14, § 126, 3 October 2019).

The interference with its property rights thus resulted directly from the text of section 21(5) on the date of the withdrawal of its licences (see, mutatis mutandis, Ciubuc and Others v. Moldova, (dec.), no. 32816/07, 10 January 2012) and the applicant did not have any available instruments under Moldovan law to challenge the Convention compatibility of that provision, since individuals and private entities do not have access to the Constitutional Court in Moldova (see Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 122, ECHR 2010 (extracts)).