FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 55148/21
Nicolae DANILIUC
against the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 24 April 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 28 September 2021,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Nicolae Daniliuc, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Chișinău.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings to which the applicant was a party as a civil plaintiff and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”).

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

On 21 January 2011 a criminal investigation was initiated against O.C. and other persons, charged with fraud. The applicant was one of the victims.

On 17 October 2018, in the course of those criminal proceedings, the applicant lodged a civil action.

On 9 September 2019 the applicant sued the Ministry of Justice under Law no. 87, complaining about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings in which he was a civil plaintiff.

On 5 October 2020 the Chișinău District Court rejected the applicant’s claim, having found that the length of the criminal proceedings was not excessive. The District Court held that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal limb was not applicable to the applicant as he was the victim in the case and not an accused, while its civil limb became applicable only after the applicant had lodged the civil action, which was ten months before the start of the proceedings under Law no. 87. That judgment was upheld by the Chișinău Court of Appeal and on 15 September 2021 by the Supreme Court of Justice and became final.

It appears that the criminal proceedings in which the applicant acts as a civil party are still pending.

THE LAW

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

The Court has repeatedly found Article 6 to be applicable under its civil head 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).

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).

In the present case, the Court observes that it was only on 17 October 2018 that the applicant lodged a civil claim within the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, Article 6 of the Convention under its civil head became applicable to the proceedings in question as of that date. Almost eleven months later, on 9 September 2019, the applicant sued the State seeking compensation for the alleged excessive length of those proceedings. The first- instance judgment in the compensatory proceedings was issued on 5 October 2020 and the final judgment followed less than a year later. The Court notes that the criminal proceedings, in which the applicant was a civil party, lasted for less than three years before the Supreme Court issued its final judgment, dismissing the applicant’s compensation claim as unsubstantiated.

Given the circumstances of the case, the Court sees no reason to disagree with the domestic courts’ findings which concluded that the period under consideration was not excessively long or that the authorities were not inactive. The Court attaches particular weight to the fact that the proceedings were complex, involving a large number of defendants - both individuals and legal entities - as well as a significant number of witnesses and civil claimants. Over the years, multiple intertwined criminal cases were joined to the original criminal case, further complicating the proceedings. At the same time, the domestic authorities, including the courts, were diligent in their efforts, conducting an impressive number of investigative measures and holding nearly two hundred fifty hearings. They also made efforts to ensure the presence of numerous interested parties, including several who permanently resided abroad, dealt with frequent changes in legal representation and addressed the need to adjourn hearings due to defendants’ health issues, among other challenges.

Finally, while the Court acknowledges that the criminal proceedings in which the applicant was a civil party may still be ongoing, it also takes note of the Government’s argument that the applicant failed to file a subsequent action under Law no. 87, after the domestic courts had concluded that the proceedings were not excessively lengthy. The applicant did not pursue a compensatory venue available to him at a later stage, which could have provided an opportunity to draw the authorities’ attention to any potential shortcomings in the handling of the criminal proceedings to which he was a civil party.

In view of the above, the Court concludes that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention in respect of the length of the criminal proceedings, to which he 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 he had no effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings.

The Court has found the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 to be inadmissible. Accordingly, he 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 15 May 2025.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Kateřina Šimáčková
 Acting Deputy Registrar President