FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 39466/17
Maria LUCA
against the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 February 2025 as a Committee composed of:

 Kateřina Šimáčková, President,
 Diana Sârcu,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 May 2017,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE AND FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Maria Luca, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Ialoveni.

The applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard were notified to the Moldovan Government.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

On 8 October 2012 the applicant complained to authorities that money had been stolen from her flat. Three days later she was granted a civil party status within the criminal proceedings. On 19 April 2016 the criminal investigation was suspended as no perpetrator could be identified. The decision to suspend the criminal investigation was not challenged by the applicant.

On 6 June 2016 the applicant brought civil proceedings against the Ministry of Justice, complaining about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. The Chișinău District Court rejected the claim. That judgment was upheld on 3 May 2017 by the Supreme Court of Justice and became final.

THE LAW

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings to which she was a civil party and about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.

The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention was inadmissible ratione materiae as she had not lodged a civil action in the course of the criminal proceedings. In alternative, the Government argued that the overall length of the criminal proceedings was not excessive.

The applicant contested the Government’s view on the applicability of Article 6. She observed that she had been granted the civil party status in the criminal proceedings and, even if she attempted to bring a civil claim, there was no chance for it to be examined given that the criminal case had never been sent to a court as no perpetrator had been identified.

The Court has repeatedly found Article 6 to be applicable from the moment that an applicant has joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party, or has asked to do so, in accordance with the requirements of national law (see, for example, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 63-67, ECHR 2004-I;   Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 207, 25 June 2019; and Fabbri and Others v. San Marino [GC], nos. 6319/21 and 2 others, §§ 88-93, 24 September 2024). Merely days after the institution of the criminal proceedings the applicant had been granted the status of a civil party therein.

In the light of the above considerations and based on the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds Article 6 of the Convention applicable and therefore dismisses the Government’s objection in that regard.

The Court further reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Cravcenco v. Moldova, no. 13012/02, § 44, 15 January 2008).

The Court notes that the criminal proceedings started on 8 October 2012, three days later the applicant was granted the civil party status, and on 19 April 2016 the proceedings were suspended in view of the impossibility to identify a suspect. The applicant neither challenged that decision nor disputed the adequacy and effectiveness of the measures taken by the investigating authorities to establish the possible perpetrators, which would have allowed the applicant to pursue her civil claim.

Leaving aside the fact that the applicant did not appeal against the decision of 19 April 2016, the Court observes that she has pointed to no specific delays in the authorities’ actions, apart from the very fact that they had decided to suspend the investigation in the absence of a suspect. The facts of the case do not disclose that the investigating authorities or the prosecution acted inappropriately or otherwise failed to carry out their duties with due diligence as from the moment of the applicant’s involvement and until the investigation was suspended, while the inability to identify the perpetrator was the only reason why the criminal proceedings could not move forward. The applicant also did not claim that after the suspension of the investigation new information had come to light which would have allowed the authorities to resume the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the State also cannot be held responsible for the period following the suspension of the investigation on 19 April 2016.

In view of the above, the Court concludes that the applicant’s complaint in respect of the length of the criminal proceedings, to which she was a civil party, is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention arguing that she had no effective domestic remedy in respect of her complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings.

The Court has found the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 to be inadmissible. Accordingly, she had no “arguable claim” of a violation of that Article and the applicant cannot derive from Article 13 a right to a remedy in respect of the alleged violation. It follows that this part of the application must also be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 20 March 2025.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Kateřina Šimáčková
 Acting Deputy Registrar President