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

Information

  • Judgment date: 2025-04-24
  • Communication date: 2014-09-30
  • Application number(s): 63239/10
  • Country:   MDA
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, P1-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
    Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.686528
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Valeriu Neamțu, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Trușeni.
He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Postică, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.
A.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant and his family were victims of political repression during the Soviet regime.
On 13 September 2004 he brought an action against the Strășeni local council and the Ministry of Finance seeking compensation for his family’s confiscated property.
On 11 March 2008 the Buiucani District Court accepted the applicant’s claims in full and awarded him 511,300 Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent to 30,450 euros (EUR)).
On 20 November 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals lodged by the Strășeni local council and by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the first-instance judgment.
The representative of Strășeni local council was present in the appellate proceedings.
The judgment became final in the absence of an appeal.
On 28 January 2009 the applicant initiated enforcement proceedings.
By a letter of 30 January 2009 a bailiff afforded the Ministry of Finance a time‐limit of fifteen days to comply with the judgment in the applicant’s favour; the original of the judgment was attached to the letter.
An entry stamp of the Ministry of Finance dated 30 January 2009 confirmed the receipt of this letter.
On 29 May 2009 the Ministry of Finance lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice an appeal in cassation.
It his written submissions before the Supreme Court of Justice the applicant argued that the appeal was time‐barred because the Ministry of Finance had learned about the appellate judgment at the latest on 30 January 2009.
At the hearing of 18 November 2009 before the Supreme Court of Justice the Strășeni local council submitted an appeal in cassation and argued that it had been lodged on 30 December 2008.
The appeal bore an exit stamp of the Strășeni administration dated 30 December 2008 and no entry stamp of a court’s registry.
In his written submissions before the Supreme Court of Justice the applicant argued that the appeal was time‐barred because, in the absence of evidence that it was actually lodged with a court at an earlier date, its lodging date should be considered 18 November 2009, which was eight months after the legal time-limit had expired.
On 10 February 2010 the Supreme Court of Justice accepted both appeals in cassation and decreased the compensation awarded to the applicant to MDL 33,300 (equivalent to EUR 1,910).
The court stated that the appeals were not time-barred, because according to the court, they were lodged on 30 December 2008 and 11 May 2009 by the Strășeni local council and by the Ministry of Finance respectively, which was within the two-month time‐limit calculated from the moment when a copy of the appellate judgment was sent on 13 January 2009 and on 15 April 2009 to the Strășeni local council and to the Ministry of Finance respectively.
The court did not answer the applicant’s arguments that the Ministry of Finance had learned about the appellate judgment at an earlier date and that there was no evidence in the file that the Strășeni local council had actually lodged the appeal on 30 December 2008.
That judgment was final.
B.
Relevant domestic law According to Article 434 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code, as worded at the time of the events, an appeal in cassation may be lodged within two months from the delivery of the appellate judgment and in case the full text of the judgment is provided at a later date, from the date when the parties are informed in written about the signature of the full judgment text.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 to the Convention about the quashing of the final judgment of the Chişinău Court of Appeals of 20 November 2008 delivered in his favour, without providing any reasons for upholding appeals in cassation which had been lodged after the expiry of the time-limit for lodging them.

Judgment

FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF NEAMŢU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 63239/10)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 April 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Neamţu v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Andreas Zünd, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 63239/10) 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 9 August 2010 by a Moldovan national, Mr Valeriu Neamţu, born in 1948 and living in Truseni (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr A. Postică, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning legal certainty (Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention) to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the relevant time, Mr L. Apostol, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
the withdrawal from the case of Mrs Diana Sârcu, the judge elected in respect of the Republic of Moldova;
the information given to the Moldovan Government that the case was assigned to a Committee;

Having deliberated in private on 20 March 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the examination of late appeals and the resulting overturning of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour. 2. The applicant brought an action against Strășeni Local Council (“the local council”) and the Ministry of Finance seeking compensation for his family’s property confiscated during Soviet times. On 11 March 2008 the Buiucani District Court accepted the applicant’s claims in full and awarded him 511,300 Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent to 30,450 euros (EUR)). On 20 November 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. That judgment could be appealed in cassation within 20 days from the date when the parties were notified of it. 3. On 13 January 2009 the parties were sent a copy of the fully reasoned judgment. The applicant initiated enforcement proceedings. By a letter of 30 January 2009, the bailiff asked the Ministry of Finance to enforce the judgment. He did the same in respect of the local council on 31 January 2009. 4. On 15 April 2009 the Ministry inquired with the court about the judgment and obtained a copy thereof. On 29 May 2009 it lodged an appeal in cassation. At the hearing of 18 November 2009 before the Supreme Court of Justice, the local council submitted an appeal in cassation and argued that it had been lodged on 30 December 2008. The appeal bore an exit stamp of the Strășeni administration dated 30 December 2008 but no entry stamp of a court’s registry. The applicant argued before the court that both appeals were belated. 5. On 10 February 2010 the Supreme Court of Justice accepted both appeals in cassation and reduced the compensation awarded to the applicant to MDL 33,300 (equivalent to EUR 1,910). The court found that the appeals were not time-barred as they had been lodged on 30 December 2008 and 11 May 2009 respectively, which was within the legal two-month time‐limit. 6. The applicant complained of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because the domestic courts examined appeals lodged outside the legal time-limit. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
7. On 22 June 2011 the applicant died. His wife and only heir, Mrs Maria Neamțu, expressed her wish to continue with the application. The Government submitted that the applicant’s heir had not demonstrated sufficient interest in pursuing the application, referring only to the pecuniary interest. They therefore invited the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases. 8. The Court notes that the original application concerned an alleged breach of the principle of legal certainty and the resulting loss of a sum of money awarded by a judgment. It reiterates that the economic nature of the interests at stake is a valid reason for pursuing an application (see, for instance, Sandu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 21034/05 and 7 others, § 50, 17 July 2018). Therefore, the Government’s objection is to be dismissed. For practical reasons, the present judgment will continue to refer to Mr Neamțu as “the applicant” although his heir, Mrs Maria Neamțu, is today to be regarded as having that status (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999‐VI). 9. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 10. The general principles concerning legal certainty have been summarised in Brumărescu v. Romania [GC] (no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999‐VII) and Carpov v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 6338/11, §§ 20-23, 12 February 2019). In particular, examining an appeal outside the legal time-limits may undermine the principle of legal certainty (see Ghirea v. Moldova, no. 15778/05, § 35, 26 June 2012). 11. It is noted that the Supreme Court of Justice found that the appeals had not been late. However, it is apparent that both the Ministry of Finance and the local council had to be aware of the existence of the fully reasoned judgment at least as early as on 30 and 31 January 2009 respectively (see paragraph 3 above). Thus, the Ministry’s appeal lodged in May 2009 was late. 12. The local council submitted a copy of an appeal in cassation made on 30 December 2008. However, there is no evidence in the file that the appeal was in fact sent out or that it arrived at the Court of Appeal. Moreover, it is unclear how the local council could have lodged a reasoned appeal before a copy of the fully reasoned judgment had been sent to the parties on 13 January 2009 (see paragraph 3 above). Finally, had an appeal been lodged on 30 December 2008, no enforcement proceedings would have been possible in January 2009 as an appeal in cassation had a suspensive effect. Therefore, the local council’s appeal in cassation, which could not be found in the file before 18 November 2009, was also late. 13. In the light of these circumstances, the Court finds no reason to distinguish this case from those mentioned above (see paragraph 10 above). There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 14. The applicant also complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the examination of the late appeals lodged by the opposing parties. This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that the complaint discloses a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Carpov, cited above, §§ 26-27). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. The applicant claimed EUR 28,540 euros in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the difference between the award in the final judgment in his favour and the sum he was eventually awarded after the annulment of that judgment. Relying on domestic legislation (see Ceachir v. Moldova, no. 11712/04, § 31, 15 January 2008), he also claimed interest for the delayed execution of the pecuniary obligation in question, amounting to MDL 419,808 (approximately EUR 21,000). Finally, he claimed EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. 16. The Government contested these amounts and submitted that there was no causal link between the alleged breaches and the claim for pecuniary damage. 17. The Court notes that the first-instance court’s judgment, which had become final after no appeal was lodged within the legal time-limit, provided for a specific sum to be paid to the applicant (approximately EUR 30,450). It awards him the difference between that sum and what he was eventually paid (EUR 1,910), that is EUR 28,540. Taking into account that the applicant could not enjoy that sum for many years, it also awards him EUR 10,000 for the lost interest (see Carpov v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 6338/11, § 31, 12 February 2019). Furthermore, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 18. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,440 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. He relied on a contract with his lawyer and a detailed list of hours worked on the case. 19. The Government considered the sum claimed to be excessive. 20. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court accepts this claim in full. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 38,540 (thirty eight thousand five hundred and forty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 1,440 (one thousand four hundred and forty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 24 April 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Martina Keller Andreas Zünd Deputy Registrar President

FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF NEAMŢU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 63239/10)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 April 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Neamţu v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Andreas Zünd, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 63239/10) 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 9 August 2010 by a Moldovan national, Mr Valeriu Neamţu, born in 1948 and living in Truseni (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr A. Postică, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning legal certainty (Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention) to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the relevant time, Mr L. Apostol, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
the withdrawal from the case of Mrs Diana Sârcu, the judge elected in respect of the Republic of Moldova;
the information given to the Moldovan Government that the case was assigned to a Committee;

Having deliberated in private on 20 March 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the examination of late appeals and the resulting overturning of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour. 2. The applicant brought an action against Strășeni Local Council (“the local council”) and the Ministry of Finance seeking compensation for his family’s property confiscated during Soviet times. On 11 March 2008 the Buiucani District Court accepted the applicant’s claims in full and awarded him 511,300 Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent to 30,450 euros (EUR)). On 20 November 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. That judgment could be appealed in cassation within 20 days from the date when the parties were notified of it. 3. On 13 January 2009 the parties were sent a copy of the fully reasoned judgment. The applicant initiated enforcement proceedings. By a letter of 30 January 2009, the bailiff asked the Ministry of Finance to enforce the judgment. He did the same in respect of the local council on 31 January 2009. 4. On 15 April 2009 the Ministry inquired with the court about the judgment and obtained a copy thereof. On 29 May 2009 it lodged an appeal in cassation. At the hearing of 18 November 2009 before the Supreme Court of Justice, the local council submitted an appeal in cassation and argued that it had been lodged on 30 December 2008. The appeal bore an exit stamp of the Strășeni administration dated 30 December 2008 but no entry stamp of a court’s registry. The applicant argued before the court that both appeals were belated. 5. On 10 February 2010 the Supreme Court of Justice accepted both appeals in cassation and reduced the compensation awarded to the applicant to MDL 33,300 (equivalent to EUR 1,910). The court found that the appeals were not time-barred as they had been lodged on 30 December 2008 and 11 May 2009 respectively, which was within the legal two-month time‐limit. 6. The applicant complained of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because the domestic courts examined appeals lodged outside the legal time-limit. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
7. On 22 June 2011 the applicant died. His wife and only heir, Mrs Maria Neamțu, expressed her wish to continue with the application. The Government submitted that the applicant’s heir had not demonstrated sufficient interest in pursuing the application, referring only to the pecuniary interest. They therefore invited the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases. 8. The Court notes that the original application concerned an alleged breach of the principle of legal certainty and the resulting loss of a sum of money awarded by a judgment. It reiterates that the economic nature of the interests at stake is a valid reason for pursuing an application (see, for instance, Sandu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 21034/05 and 7 others, § 50, 17 July 2018). Therefore, the Government’s objection is to be dismissed. For practical reasons, the present judgment will continue to refer to Mr Neamțu as “the applicant” although his heir, Mrs Maria Neamțu, is today to be regarded as having that status (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999‐VI). 9. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 10. The general principles concerning legal certainty have been summarised in Brumărescu v. Romania [GC] (no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999‐VII) and Carpov v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 6338/11, §§ 20-23, 12 February 2019). In particular, examining an appeal outside the legal time-limits may undermine the principle of legal certainty (see Ghirea v. Moldova, no. 15778/05, § 35, 26 June 2012). 11. It is noted that the Supreme Court of Justice found that the appeals had not been late. However, it is apparent that both the Ministry of Finance and the local council had to be aware of the existence of the fully reasoned judgment at least as early as on 30 and 31 January 2009 respectively (see paragraph 3 above). Thus, the Ministry’s appeal lodged in May 2009 was late. 12. The local council submitted a copy of an appeal in cassation made on 30 December 2008. However, there is no evidence in the file that the appeal was in fact sent out or that it arrived at the Court of Appeal. Moreover, it is unclear how the local council could have lodged a reasoned appeal before a copy of the fully reasoned judgment had been sent to the parties on 13 January 2009 (see paragraph 3 above). Finally, had an appeal been lodged on 30 December 2008, no enforcement proceedings would have been possible in January 2009 as an appeal in cassation had a suspensive effect. Therefore, the local council’s appeal in cassation, which could not be found in the file before 18 November 2009, was also late. 13. In the light of these circumstances, the Court finds no reason to distinguish this case from those mentioned above (see paragraph 10 above). There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 14. The applicant also complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the examination of the late appeals lodged by the opposing parties. This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that the complaint discloses a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Carpov, cited above, §§ 26-27). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. The applicant claimed EUR 28,540 euros in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the difference between the award in the final judgment in his favour and the sum he was eventually awarded after the annulment of that judgment. Relying on domestic legislation (see Ceachir v. Moldova, no. 11712/04, § 31, 15 January 2008), he also claimed interest for the delayed execution of the pecuniary obligation in question, amounting to MDL 419,808 (approximately EUR 21,000). Finally, he claimed EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. 16. The Government contested these amounts and submitted that there was no causal link between the alleged breaches and the claim for pecuniary damage. 17. The Court notes that the first-instance court’s judgment, which had become final after no appeal was lodged within the legal time-limit, provided for a specific sum to be paid to the applicant (approximately EUR 30,450). It awards him the difference between that sum and what he was eventually paid (EUR 1,910), that is EUR 28,540. Taking into account that the applicant could not enjoy that sum for many years, it also awards him EUR 10,000 for the lost interest (see Carpov v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 6338/11, § 31, 12 February 2019). Furthermore, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 18. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,440 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. He relied on a contract with his lawyer and a detailed list of hours worked on the case. 19. The Government considered the sum claimed to be excessive. 20. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court accepts this claim in full. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 38,540 (thirty eight thousand five hundred and forty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 1,440 (one thousand four hundred and forty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 24 April 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Martina Keller Andreas Zünd Deputy Registrar President