CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .s556D3942 { width:152.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sF0A3FEB8 { width:117.68%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s90FE61AA { width:8.2%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sDBCC1827 { width:27.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4CB0DACA { width:19.6%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1266D0A1 { width:19.74%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s474FA2F { width:24.58%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2445F5C1 { width:8.2%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s553104EE { width:27.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s521C84F4 { width:19.6%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5D485D00 { width:19.74%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB8150260 { width:24.58%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 54997/12 Ilie ROTARU and Others against the Republic of Moldova   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 28   May   2025 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.   54997/12) 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   June 2012 by 4 Moldovan nationals, relevant details listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”) who were represented by Mr I. Rotaru, a lawyer practising in Chișinău; the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning access to court to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr   O. Rotari, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the alleged limitation of the right of access to court as a result of a domestic court’s decision affecting the applicants’ rights without involving them in the proceedings. 2.     On 21 March 2007 ‘Gemenii’ S.A., a private company registered in the Republic of Moldova, asked a court to confirm the list of its shareholders on the basis of a list from 2004. On 26 April 2007 the Chișinău Economic Court accepted that request and confirmed the list of shareholders. 3.     The applicants were shareholders of ‘Gemenii’ S.A. In unrelated proceedings on 12 May 2011 they found out about the decision of 26   April 2007. On 16 May 2011 the applicants asked for the annulment of the decision of 26 April 2007 because, inter alia , they had not been aware about those proceedings, which affected their rights since they had lost their property as a result. They relied on Article 449 (g) and (h) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allowed the courts to re-open proceedings that had ended with a final court decision, if the Government’s Agent or the Court had initiated friendly settlement negotiations concerning a pending case against the Republic of Moldova or if the Court had found a breach of the Convention and the person could obtain at least partial just satisfaction by annulling the relevant domestic court judgment (see paragraph 6 below). 4.     In a decision dated 29 August 2012 the Centru District Court rejected the request to reopen the proceedings, finding in particular that there was no evidence of a judgment adopted in the case by the Court, nor of any friendly settlement negotiations between the Government and the applicants concerning a case before the Court. On 13 December 2012 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision. 5.     The applicants also lodged an ordinary appeal against the decision of 26   April 2007. On 6 December 2011 the Chișinău Court of Appeal left that appeal without examination, finding that the applicants had no right of appeal since they had not been parties to the proceedings. On 2 February 2012 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld that decision. The applicants lodged a request for the reopening of these proceedings, but on 7 May 2014 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected that request as unfounded. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 6 .     Under Article 449 (g) and (h) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as was in force at the relevant time, a court could reopen the proceedings which had ended with a final court judgment if the Government’s Agent or the Court had initiated friendly settlement negotiations concerning a pending case against the Republic of Moldova or if the Court had found a breach of the Convention and the person could obtain at least partial just satisfaction by annulling the relevant domestic court judgment. Starting from 30   November 2012 that Article provided for an additional ground for reopening the proceedings, namely that the court had adopted a decision affecting the rights of persons not involved in the proceedings. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT Alleged abuse of the right of individual petition 7.     The Government submitted that Mr Rotaru had abused the right of individual petition before the Court by making abusive, frivolous and vexatious comments about domestic judges, the Government’s Agent and the Court. They added that the complaint he had made to the Prosecutor General’s Office (see below) had been dismissed. The Government asked the Court to declare Mr Rotaru a vexatious applicant and representative. 8.     Mr Rotaru argued that he had not made such accusations and that he had exercised his freedom of expression by criticising various authorities and a Court’s judgment, but had not insulted or belittled anyone. His complaint to the Prosecutor General’s Office had not been dismissed but only suspended. 9.     The Court notes that in his observations on the merits of the case Mr   Rotaru stated, inter alia , that when rejecting the applicants’ motion, several clearly identified Moldovan judges “executed an order” because of “fear as blackmailed; they received bribes or had another personal interest”; that “judges ... P. and C. will be forced to do everything to reject our application...”; that “... by fulfilling [V.V., the then President of the Republic of Moldova]’s order, they restricted our access to justice...” and that “... the Government Agent illegally and unfoundedly defends the interests of judges and criminal groups...”. Moreover, he annexed to the observations a copy of his submission made to the Supreme Court of Justice on 7 October 2019. In that document he wrote, inter alia , that “... in order not to take efficient action in the name of the Government for annulling the [disputed decision], the Government’s Agent [full name] had taken 5,000 euros from the administrator of ‘Gemenii’ S.A. via the latter’s lawyer. That lawyer also received 10,000 euros from the same administrator and handed it to an ‘influent’ judge at the Supreme Court of Justice in order to ‘influence’ that court when examining the request for the reopening of the proceedings.” He added that the Government’s Agent was probably about to be fired, but that it would be “difficult to prove his direct involvement in the activity of the criminal group within ‘Gemenii’ S.A.”. In a complaint lodged with the Prosecutor General’s Office on 22 October 2019 he repeated the accusation that the Government’s Agent had taken a bribe of 5,000 euros from “Gemenii” S.A. and that the three judges who had examined the case had taken a bribe of 10,000 euros for rejecting the request to reopen the proceedings. He also accused the three judges concerned of being “absolutely incompetent” and the Government’s Agent of betraying the Government. 10.     It is also noted that in an interview aired on 16 May 2020 Mr   Rotaru discussed the Court’s judgment in Ojog and others v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 1988/06, 18 February 2020) and stated that he “considers that that judgment was not written by the people at the European Court ( cei de la CEDO ), the judges, but was written by someone in the Republic of Moldova and it was given to [the European Court judges] for signature.” In a filmed public statement of 6 October 2022 Mr Rotaru mentioned, inter alia and with reference to Ojog and others, cited above, that “... the so-called Government’s Agent [full name] lied to the Court and did not ask for the revision of that judgment”. 11.     In a letter dated 24 January 2022 Mr Rotaru challenged the participation of the elected judge in respect of the Republic of Moldova because her mother, a former judge at the Supreme Court of Justice “is well known as a judge who, over the years, adopted at the order of [V.V., a former President of the Republic of Moldova and P., a former oligarch] dozens or even hundreds of illegal judgments and decisions...”. He asked why it was normal “for the ‘well-known’ daughter of a judge with the reputation of [the mother of the sitting judge in respect of the Republic of Moldova] to become a judge at the Court” and challenged her participation in the present case. 12.     Mr Rotaru was invited to submit arguments and evidence in reply to the Government’s submissions. He submitted such a reply, but no evidence to support his accusations mentioned above. 13.     The Court will next examine the Government’s request to declare the application inadmissible on the basis of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 which, in so far as relevant, provide as follows: “3.     The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application ... which it considers ... [to be] ... an abuse of the right of application. 4.     The Court shall reject any application which it considers inadmissible under this Article. It may do so at any stage of the proceedings.” 14.     The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, an application may be considered as an abuse of the right of individual petition where, inter   alia , an applicant in his or her correspondence uses particularly vexatious, insulting, threatening or provocative language – whether this be directed against the respondent Government themselves or their Agent . Nevertheless, it is not sufficient for the applicant’s language to be merely cutting, polemical or sarcastic; it must exceed “the bounds of normal, civil and legitimate criticism” in order to be regarded as abusive.   In that connection, legal professionals representing applicants before the Court must also ensure compliance with the procedural and ethical rules, including the use of appropriate language (see   X and Others v. Bulgaria   [GC], no.   22457/16, §   146, 2 February 2021, with further references). If, however, the applicant refrains, during the proceedings before the Court, from further using the provocative or offensive language in question and then expressly withdraws it and offers an apology, the application may not be rejected as abusive (see, for example, Chernitsyn v.   Russia , no.   5964/02, §§   26 ‑ 28, 6   April 2006). 15.     With this in mind, the Court takes note of the submissions of Mr   Rotaru as described above, which contain serious and specific allegations about unlawful conduct of judges both at the domestic level and at the Court, as well as of the Government’s Agent, all without any evidence. Moreover, after becoming aware of the Government’s request to dismiss the application as abusive and having been invited to comment, he did not apologise to the Court and to the domestic authorities concerned, but made further statements, both in public appearances and in letters to the Court, adding accusations in particular against the judge elected in respect of the Republic of Moldova and her mother. The Court finds that his statements exceeded “the bounds of normal, civil and legitimate criticism”. 16.     In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition. 17.     It follows that the application in the present case, inasmuch as it concerns Mr Rotaru, must be rejected as an abuse of the right of application, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Admissibility 18.     The Court notes that the application was lodged by four persons and that none of the remaining three applicants ever engaged in the type of conduct for which the application was declared inadmissible in respect of Mr   Rotaru. Accordingly, although he represented the other applicants, the Court must separately examine the admissibility of their application. 19.     According to the applicants’ submissions, in May 2011 they found out about the fact that a judgment affecting their property right had been adopted in 2007. They therefore filed a request for the reopening of the proceedings. 20.     However, it is noted that during the period in question and until 30   November 2012, the domestic law did not provide for such a ground for the reopening of the proceedings as the adoption of a judgment affecting the rights of third parties without involving such third parties in the proceedings. In the absence of such a ground, the applicants referred to other provisions, namely the existence of a judgment of the Court finding a breach of the Convention or the initiation of friendly settlement proceedings in relation to a complaint lodged with the Court. However, at that time the applicants had not lodged the present application with the Court and there could be no question of a friendly settlement or a judgment on the matter. 21.     It follows that the ground relied on by the applicants could not serve as a basis for the reopening of the proceedings, as also found by the domestic courts in the present case. 22.     In the absence of a ground for requesting the reopening of the proceedings, the applicants had no domestic remedy for the breach alleged in the present application. Accordingly, they had to submit their application to the Court within six months from the moment when they had become aware of the breach of their rights in May 2011. However, the applicants lodged their application on 26 June 2012, more than six months later. The fact that such a remedy appeared in the domestic law after the expiry of the six ‑ month period – namely, on 30 November 2012 – does not change the above conclusion since by that time the applicants had already missed the time-limit for lodging their complaint with the Court. 23.     In view of the above, the Court finds that the complaint lodged by the applicants other than Mr Rotaru is inadmissible in accordance with Article   35 §§   1, 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 19 June 2025.     Martina Keller   Andreas Zünd   Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applicants: Application no. 54997/12 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Ilie ROTARU 1954 Moldovan Chișinău 2. Irina CLIȚMAN 1984 Moldovan Bălți 3. Viorica GUȚU 1975 Moldovan Ghelăuza 4. Maria MAMALIGA 1935 Moldovan Lozova