I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in CIOCOI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA.

Judgment

FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF CIOCOI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 31022/13)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 June 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ciocoi v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, María Elósegui, Diana Sârcu, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 31022/13) 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 12 April 2013 by two Moldovan nationals, Mr Valentin Ciocoi and Ms Ludmila Ciocoi (“the applicants”), who were born in 1963 and 1959 respectively, live in Chișinău and were represented by Mr C. Mihăilă, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms D. Maimescu;
the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 22 May 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns the alleged interference with the applicants’ property by interim measures ordered by a court in the course of proceedings in which the applicants had no procedural standing. The applicants complain under Articles 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 2. In particular, in 2003-2004 the applicants acquired several buildings, constructions and a plot of land, which the State Tax Inspectorate had forfeited from company F.. The applicants had been given guarantees that the acquired property was free of any claims from third parties. 3. Subsequently, F. went into liquidation. On 19 December 2011 the District Economic Court ordered interim measures which obliged the applicants to allow a court-appointed liquidator access to their property to carry out an inventory and to seize any assets belonging to F. On 2 May 2012 the bailiff contacted the first applicant in order to ensure the enforcement of the court order of 19 December 2011. 4. On 7 May 2012 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Chișinău Court of Appeal, seeking the quashing of the court order of 19 December 2011. The court returned their appeal without examination, noting that the applicants had no procedural standing in those proceedings and thus were unable to lodge an appeal. 5. On 21 June 2012 the applicants lodged a court action, seeking the cancellation of the court order of 19 December 2011, arguing that it had seriously violated their right to the protection of property. On 20 August 2012 the District Commercial Court dismissed the applicants’ action, noting that they had no procedural standing in the original proceedings. The applicants appealed against that judgment. On 1 November 2012 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal on the same grounds. 6. The applicants lodged an application with the Court arguing a violation of their rights under Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 7. After the communication of the case to the respondent Government on 25 October 2021, the Government Agent sought the reopening of domestic proceedings with a view to a domestic settlement of the case. 8. After several rounds of hearings, on 4 July 2023 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the Government Agent’s request, reopened proceedings and explicitly acknowledged the violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention. It further quashed the judgment of the Chișinău Court of Appeal of 1 November 2012 and issued a new judgment which upheld the applicants’ original appeal (see paragraph 5 above), and cancelled the interim measures established by the court order of 19 December 2011. In respect of just satisfaction, the court explained that it remained for the Government Agent to negotiate a settlement with the applicants, as the court was unable to rule on the matter in the absence of any specific claims from the applicants and from the Government Agent. No appeal was made against this judgment which became final. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
9. The applicants complained of an interference with their property rights by a court order adopted in proceedings to which they had not been parties. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 10. The Government submitted that the applicants had lost their victim status as a result of the judgment adopted in their favour on 4 July 2023, which had acknowledged the violation of their rights and annulled the impugned interim measures, thus providing redress of the violations. The Government contended that since the applicants had not appealed against this judgment they had been satisfied with the outcome of proceedings. 11. The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, § 129, 31 January 2019). 12. In the present case it is true that the domestic courts held that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and they annulled the court order from which the violations stemmed. However, they did not afford any redress to the applicants in the form of pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage, explicitly referring to the role of the Government Agent in reaching an agreement with the applicants on such redress. In such circumstances and in the absence of any subsequent settlement between the parties, the Court considers that the applicants continue to be victims of the violations complained of and therefore it dismisses the Government’s objection about them losing their victim status. As the complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds, it declares them admissible. 13. The Court notes that the Government agree that the applicants suffered a breach of their rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Their acknowledgement is based on the finding of violations by the Chișinău Court of Appeal on 4 July 2023. In view of its own case-law (see, in particular, Business Şi Investiţii Pentru Toţi v. Moldova, no. 39391/04, 13 October 2009; and concerning procedural obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention see G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 302, 28 June 2018, and the cases cited therein) the Court sees no reason to depart from the conclusion of the Chișinău Court of Appeal and does not consider it necessary to re-examine the merits of these complaints. 14. Given the fact that the applicants had not been awarded any compensation at the domestic level, either directly by the Chișinău Court of Appeal or by a negotiated settlement with the Government Agent, there has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. The applicants claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. They argued that the annulment of the impugned interim measures 11 years later had not redressed their suffering and anxiety caused by the bailiff’s harassment. Despite the loss of investment and of revenue due to the harassment of tenants, they did not make any claims for pecuniary damage. They also did not claim any costs and expenses. 16. The Government contended that their claims were unsubstantiated. 17. The Court considers that the applicants must have experienced a certain amount of uncertainty and disruption to their business plans as a result of the violations of their rights guaranteed under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicants jointly EUR 4,700 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, EUR 4,700 (four thousand seven hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‐pecuniary damage, to be converted into Moldovan lei 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 amount 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 19 June 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Martina Keller Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström Deputy Registrar President

FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF CIOCOI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 31022/13)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 June 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ciocoi v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, María Elósegui, Diana Sârcu, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 31022/13) 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 12 April 2013 by two Moldovan nationals, Mr Valentin Ciocoi and Ms Ludmila Ciocoi (“the applicants”), who were born in 1963 and 1959 respectively, live in Chișinău and were represented by Mr C. Mihăilă, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms D. Maimescu;
the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 22 May 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns the alleged interference with the applicants’ property by interim measures ordered by a court in the course of proceedings in which the applicants had no procedural standing. The applicants complain under Articles 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 2. In particular, in 2003-2004 the applicants acquired several buildings, constructions and a plot of land, which the State Tax Inspectorate had forfeited from company F.. The applicants had been given guarantees that the acquired property was free of any claims from third parties. 3. Subsequently, F. went into liquidation. On 19 December 2011 the District Economic Court ordered interim measures which obliged the applicants to allow a court-appointed liquidator access to their property to carry out an inventory and to seize any assets belonging to F. On 2 May 2012 the bailiff contacted the first applicant in order to ensure the enforcement of the court order of 19 December 2011. 4. On 7 May 2012 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Chișinău Court of Appeal, seeking the quashing of the court order of 19 December 2011. The court returned their appeal without examination, noting that the applicants had no procedural standing in those proceedings and thus were unable to lodge an appeal. 5. On 21 June 2012 the applicants lodged a court action, seeking the cancellation of the court order of 19 December 2011, arguing that it had seriously violated their right to the protection of property. On 20 August 2012 the District Commercial Court dismissed the applicants’ action, noting that they had no procedural standing in the original proceedings. The applicants appealed against that judgment. On 1 November 2012 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal on the same grounds. 6. The applicants lodged an application with the Court arguing a violation of their rights under Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 7. After the communication of the case to the respondent Government on 25 October 2021, the Government Agent sought the reopening of domestic proceedings with a view to a domestic settlement of the case. 8. After several rounds of hearings, on 4 July 2023 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the Government Agent’s request, reopened proceedings and explicitly acknowledged the violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention. It further quashed the judgment of the Chișinău Court of Appeal of 1 November 2012 and issued a new judgment which upheld the applicants’ original appeal (see paragraph 5 above), and cancelled the interim measures established by the court order of 19 December 2011. In respect of just satisfaction, the court explained that it remained for the Government Agent to negotiate a settlement with the applicants, as the court was unable to rule on the matter in the absence of any specific claims from the applicants and from the Government Agent. No appeal was made against this judgment which became final. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
9. The applicants complained of an interference with their property rights by a court order adopted in proceedings to which they had not been parties. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 10. The Government submitted that the applicants had lost their victim status as a result of the judgment adopted in their favour on 4 July 2023, which had acknowledged the violation of their rights and annulled the impugned interim measures, thus providing redress of the violations. The Government contended that since the applicants had not appealed against this judgment they had been satisfied with the outcome of proceedings. 11. The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, § 129, 31 January 2019). 12. In the present case it is true that the domestic courts held that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and they annulled the court order from which the violations stemmed. However, they did not afford any redress to the applicants in the form of pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage, explicitly referring to the role of the Government Agent in reaching an agreement with the applicants on such redress. In such circumstances and in the absence of any subsequent settlement between the parties, the Court considers that the applicants continue to be victims of the violations complained of and therefore it dismisses the Government’s objection about them losing their victim status. As the complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds, it declares them admissible. 13. The Court notes that the Government agree that the applicants suffered a breach of their rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Their acknowledgement is based on the finding of violations by the Chișinău Court of Appeal on 4 July 2023. In view of its own case-law (see, in particular, Business Şi Investiţii Pentru Toţi v. Moldova, no. 39391/04, 13 October 2009; and concerning procedural obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention see G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 302, 28 June 2018, and the cases cited therein) the Court sees no reason to depart from the conclusion of the Chișinău Court of Appeal and does not consider it necessary to re-examine the merits of these complaints. 14. Given the fact that the applicants had not been awarded any compensation at the domestic level, either directly by the Chișinău Court of Appeal or by a negotiated settlement with the Government Agent, there has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. The applicants claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. They argued that the annulment of the impugned interim measures 11 years later had not redressed their suffering and anxiety caused by the bailiff’s harassment. Despite the loss of investment and of revenue due to the harassment of tenants, they did not make any claims for pecuniary damage. They also did not claim any costs and expenses. 16. The Government contended that their claims were unsubstantiated. 17. The Court considers that the applicants must have experienced a certain amount of uncertainty and disruption to their business plans as a result of the violations of their rights guaranteed under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicants jointly EUR 4,700 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, EUR 4,700 (four thousand seven hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‐pecuniary damage, to be converted into Moldovan lei 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 amount 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 19 June 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Martina Keller Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström Deputy Registrar President