FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF ŢÎBÎRNĂ AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

(Application no. 67593/14)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 April 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ţîbîrnă and Others v. the Republic of Moldova,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

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

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 27 March 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 26 September 2014.

2.  Some of the applicants (listed in Annex 1) were represented by Ms Z. Guţu, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.

3.  The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4.  The applicants’ details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended tables, as well as in the text of the present judgment.

5.  The case concerns the alleged responsibility of the State for the non-enforcement of a final judgment in the applicants’ favour against private debtors due to a failure of a State agent to comply with the seizing order, which resulted in the alienation of some of the debtors’ assets. The applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

6.  The applicants invested in company I. that turned out to be a pyramid-type financial scheme. In the criminal proceedings against C.V. (the director of the company), the applicants, together with other investors, were admitted as civil parties in respect of the amounts equivalent to their investment.

7.  On 22 November 2002 the Chișinău District Court convicted C.V. and granted, in full, the civil claims against him and company I., as joint debtors. This judgment became final on 7 June 2006, after the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed C.V.’s appeal on points of law.

8.  During the trial the company’s assets had been seized, but as it was subsequently revealed, the investigating officer did not comply with the seizing order and allowed their alienation. On 2 July 2010 the Chișinău District Court convicted the senior investigator A.C. of abuse of power. That judgment became final on 9 April 2013, after the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed A.C.’s appeal on points of law. The judgment read as follows:

“By committing actions that were not within his competence, he [A.C.] discredited the public authority which he represented and placed the authorities in a situation of impossibility to repair the material damage to the injured parties caused by C.V.’s illegal actions. ...

Moreover, in September 1999, A.C. gave indications to the officers of the Chișinău Police Inspectorate to escort C.V. from prison to the company’s headquarters... granting [C.V.] the possibility to dispose of the assets of company I. on his own, without any restrictions. Thus, in the period of October-December 1999, based on the illegal permission of the investigator A.C., C.V., systematically escorted to the company’s headquarters, alienated the assets of company I. to unidentified persons ... Thus, A.C. caused material damage to the injured parties ... .”

9.  In 2005 bailiff opened enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 22 November 2002. In the course of the enforcement, after the sale of company I.’s remaining assets and of a building allocated by the State, the applicants received approximately 20% of the awards made in their favour by the court.

10.  In 2013, after the distribution of the collected funds among creditors, the bailiff returned partially executed enforcement titles for the reason that company I. had no other assets that could be traced.

11.  In 2016 one hundred twenty-four creditors, including some of the applicants, resubmitted their enforcement titles to the bailiff. Following the enforcement measures, relatively insignificant additional funds had been distributed among creditors. Since company I. had no other assets that could be traced, the bailiff returned the partially executed enforcement titles to the creditors.

12.  In 2012 the applicants sued the State in accordance with Law no. 87, claiming compensation for the non-enforcement of the final judgment. They argued, in particular, that the State was responsible for the failure of the investigating officer to comply with the seizing order which had caused the applicants material damage and rendered the enforcement of the judgment impossible.

13.  On 5 June 2013 the Chișinău District Court partially allowed the applicants’ claims. However, on 27 November 2013 the Chișinău Court of Appeal rejected their arguments and dismissed their claims concluding that the debtor was a private person for whom the State was not responsible, while the bailiff had taken all adequate and necessary measures to enforce the final judgment. That decision was upheld on 2 April 2014 by the Supreme Court of Justice.

THE LAW

1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1

14.  The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 22 November 2002 given in their favour, claiming that the State was responsible for the failure of the investigating officer to comply with the seizing order of the debtor’s assets, which rendered the enforcement of the final judgment impossible. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

15.  The Court firstly notes that the applicants, Larisa Elița (who was born in 1947 and lives in Chișinău), Svetlana Grișnova (who was born in 1953 and lives in Chișinău) and Vera Țîbîrnă (who born in 1942 and lives in Chișinău), had signed and submitted the applications on their own behalf, as victims of the alleged violations. The Court finds that there is no evidence in the casefile to confirm that they had been accepted as civil parties in the criminal proceedings against C.V., became creditors in the enforcement proceedings, or exhausted the available domestic remedy. The Court reiterates that if an application is not lodged by the victim himself or herself, Rule 45 § 3 of the Rules of Court requires the production of a duly signed written authority to act. In the present case, Larisa Elița, Svetlana Grișnova and Vera Țîbîrnă failed to submit any documents confirming that they act either as representatives or successors, therefore the Court concludes that they do not have standing to lodge the applications. It follows that their applications are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, under Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

16.  The Court further notes that in accordance with the information on the enforcement proceedings submitted by the Government, the enforcement proceedings in regard to the applicant, Ilia Papuc (who was born in 1935 and lived in Chișinău), were discontinued on 10 November 2016, after he had died. No request has been submitted to pursue the examination of the case on his behalf. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application, insofar as it was brought by Ilia Papuc. Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general nature, as defined in Article 37 § 1, which would require the examination of this part of the application by virtue of that Article. It therefore decides to strike the application out of its list of cases, insofar as it was brought by the applicant Ilia Papuc.

17.  The Court notes that the applicants appointed Mr V. Fulga as the contact person to correspond with the Court. After the Moldovan Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits, they were forwarded to Mr V. Fulga. By its letter of 24 January 2024, the Court invited the applicants to appoint a lawyer to represent them and to submit their observations and just satisfaction claims before 7 March 2024. Considering the large number of the applicants, Mr V. Fulga requested an extension of the time allowed, which was granted until 26 April 2024. The applicants, listed in Annex 1, appointed Ms Z. Guţu as their lawyer and on their behalf, she submitted the observations and just satisfaction claims. The remaining applicants, listed in Annex 2, failed to submit their observations and just satisfaction claims, or to confirm that they intended to pursue their application before the Court. By letters dated 16 December 2024, sent by registered post, Mr V. Fulga and Ms Z. Guţu were notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 26 April 2024, following the granting of the extension of the time limit, and that only forty-six applicants had submitted their observations. In regard to the remaining applicants, their attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Ms Z. Guţu received the Court’s letter and on 13 January 2025 she informed the Court that she was only authorised by forty-six applicants to act as their representative and that she had already submitted the observations and just satisfaction claims on their behalf. As for the remaining applicants, she was not aware of their intention to pursue their claims before the Court. Mr V. Fulga, who received the Court’s letter on 2 January 2025, has not responded to it.

In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application submitted by the fifty-six applicants listed in Annex 2 and decides to strike the application out of the list of cases in their regard.

18.  Lastly, the Court notes that on 6 March 2024 the applicant, Gheorghii Elița, submitted an application form to the Court, bringing the same facts and raising the same complaints as the rest of the applicants. His application was merged to the present application of which the applicant was informed. Considering that the running of the six-month time-limit for lodging an application with the Court started on 2 April 2014 (see paragraph 13 above), it follows that his application must be rejected as being out of time, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

19.  As to the remaining applicants, the Court notes that the Government argued that the applicants did not exhaust the domestic remedy available to them under the national law. In particular, they contended that some of the applicants had failed to resubmit the enforcement titles after their return in 2013 and that they could have challenged in the domestic courts the bailiff’s order to return the enforcement titles. Additionally, they argued that the applicants could have initiated enforcement proceedings against C.V. personally, as joint debtor.

20.  The Court notes that the applicants made use of the remedy available to them by submitting the titles for enforcement. The only reason for returning the titles was that company I. had no other assets that could be traced. In these circumstances, the Court considers that it would be unfair to expect the applicants to resubmit the enforcement titles or to challenge the bailiff’s order, considering that company I. had no other assets, at that time. As for the initiation of the enforcement proceedings against C.V., the Court notes that by the judgment of 22 November 2002 the Chișinău District Court granted in full the applicants’ civil claims against C.V. and company I., as joint debtors. Considering that neither the Government nor the applicants submitted the enforcement titles, it is not possible to establish if the enforcement proceedings concerned only company I. or C.V. as well. In addition, starting from 28 July 1999 and throughout the entire period of the enforcement proceedings, C.V. was in prison and the Government did not show that he had any property which could have been used to cover the debt before the applicants. The Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government pleading non-exhaustion to satisfy it that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicants’ complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, § 89, 19 December 2018). Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

21.  The Court notes that the application in the part covering the remaining applicants is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

22.  The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II; Botezatu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 17899/08, 14 April 2015; Cristea v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 35098/12, 12 February 2019).

23.  The Court notes that when final judgments are issued against private defendants, the State’s positive obligation consists of providing a legal arsenal allowing individuals to obtain, from their evading debtors, payment of sums awarded by those judgments, however this positive obligation is not that of result, but one of means. When it is established that the measures taken by the authorities were adequate and sufficient, the State cannot be held responsible for a failure of a private defendant to pay the judgment debt. Only when irregularities and defects attributable to the authorities had a deleterious effect on the enforcement proceedings in their entirety is the State’s responsibility under Article 6 of the Convention engaged (see Kunashko v. Russia, no. 36337/03, §§ 38-39, 17 December 2009; Pomul S.R.L. and Subervin S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova, nos. 14323/13 and 47663/13, § 25, 24 October 2023).

24.  Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that on 2 July 2010 the Chișinău District Court convicted the chief investigator A.C. of abuse of power, after he had failed to comply with the seizing order and had allowed the alienation of company I.’s assets. The Court further notes that it is undisputable that A.C., exercising the duties of the chief investigator, acted as a State’s agent (see Kotov v. Russia [GC], no. 54522/00, § 93, 3 April 2012). Moreover, the domestic courts found that A.C.’s actions “placed the authorities in a situation of impossibility to repair the material damage to the injured parties caused by C.V.’s illegal actions”.

25.  In that context the Court would reiterate that when the authorities seize property, they also take on a duty of care in respect of it and are liable for the damage and/or loss of such property (see Dzugayeva v. Russia, no. 44971/04, §§ 27-28, 12 February 2013; Dabić v. Croatia, no. 49001/14, § 55, 18 March 2021).

26.  The Court, having carefully examined the complaints and having regard to its case-law on the subject and the materials in its possession, finds that there are sufficient grounds to establish that the authorities’ actions had a direct impact on the enforcement proceedings, which precluded enforcement of the judgment in the remaining applicants’ favour.

27.  These complaints therefore disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as regards the applicants listed in Annex I.

2. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

28.  The applicants listed in Annex 1 claimed pecuniary damage, consisting of the amounts which remained unenforced to this date. They requested that the Government provide the exact amounts, considering that some payments had been received in the course of the enforcement proceedings. The applicants additionally claimed late-payment interest on these amounts. They also claimed 1,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 250 each in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid to their lawyer.

29.  The Government asked the Court to make no award in respect of pecuniary damage, arguing that the applicants had failed to submit any itemised claims for pecuniary damage, supported by corresponding evidence. The Government disagreed with the claim for non-pecuniary damage, considering it unsubstantiated. Finally, they submitted that the claim for costs and expenses was excessive and disproportionate to the nature and complexity of the case and that the lawyer had failed to submit a copy of the legal assistance contracts concluded with all the applicants, as well as detailed timesheets on the work carried out on this case.

30.  In respect of pecuniary damage, the Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, any claim for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with the relevant supporting documents, failing which the Court may reject the claim in whole or in part. The applicants failed to specify the exact sums claimed and failed to submit any documents in support of their general claim for pecuniary damage. Therefore, the Court makes no award in this respect.

31.  In respect of non-pecuniary damage, ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 1,000 to each of the applicants listed in Annex 1.

32.  In respect of costs and expenses the Court notes that the applicants failed to submit any documents in support of their claim for costs and expenses, such as contracts for legal assistance, an itemised list of the hours spent by the lawyer on representation or receipts for the payment of court or legal fees. Therefore, the Court makes no award in respect of costs and expenses.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application in the part introduced by the applicants listed in Annex 1 admissible, decides to strike the application from its list of cases, insofar as it was brought by the applicant, Ilia Papuc, and by the applicants listed in Annex 2, and dismisses the remaining part of the application lodged by the applicants, Larisa Elița, Svetlana Grișnova, Vera Țîbîrnă and Gheorghii Elița, as inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to the applicants listed in Annex 1;
3. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants listed in Annex 1, within three months, EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 April 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Kateřina Šimáčková

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)

ANNEX 1

List of applicants who pursued their application before the Court

ANNEX 2

List of applicants who failed to submit their observations and just satisfaction claims, or to confirm that they intend to pursue their application before the Court

1.  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.