CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 25 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s4E036C5F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .s1F8597E2 { width:129.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF PRISACARU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 55864/13)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 25 September 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Prisacaru v. the Republic of Moldova, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Georgios A. Serghides , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Diana Sârcu , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   55864/13) 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 30 July 2013 by two Moldovan nationals, Ms Virgilia Prisăcaru and Mr Octavian Prisăcaru (“the applicants”), who were born in 1978 and 1976 respectively, live in Chişinău and were represented by Mr M. Sardari, a lawyer practising in Chișinău; the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (restriction on the access to the Supreme Court of Justice due to their inability to pay court fees) to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, Mr L. Apostol, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 4 September 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to examine the applicants’ appeal on points of law due to their failure to pay court fees. The applicants complained of a limitation of their right of “access to a court” in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the lack of an effective remedy in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. 2.     In particular, on 16 July 2010, S.O. instituted court proceedings against the applicants seeking the payment of a loan for the sum of 67,280 euros (EUR). On 1 October 2012 the Botanica District Court in Chișinău upheld S.O.’s claims. The applicants appealed against the judgment and paid part of the court fees (300 lei Moldovan lei (MDL), the equivalent at the time of EUR   18.5) and asked the court to exempt them from payment of the remainder of court fees. The applicants produced evidence showing that their family had only one monthly income of MDL 1,200 (73,9 EUR), while the other adult in the family had been unemployed since 9 April 2012. 3.     On 29 November 2012 the Chișinău Court of Appeal partially granted their request and, relying on the applicants’ financial situation, reduced the court fees due from the original MDL 18,450 to MDL 5,000 (EUR 311). The applicants borrowed the money and paid the fees. On 17 January 2013 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal and upheld the first court judgment. 4 .     The applicants lodged a formal appeal on points of law and paid part of the court fees (EUR 18,5), requesting that they be partially exempted from paying the remainder of the court fees. They committed to substantiate their request along with the reasons for their appeal. The Supreme Court of Justice rejected their request and ordered the payment in entirety of the court fees for examining their case. In their reasoned appeal the applicants argued that one family member had been unemployed since 9 April 2012, while the other had been on maternity leave since 15 January 2013. The applicants submitted medical certificates confirming the birth of their two children in January   2013, payslips and a receipt confirming that they had borrowed MDL 5,000 to pay the court fees before the appellate court. Lastly, they invoked their right to access to justice. 5 .     On 20 March 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected their request, left their appeal on point of law unexamined and gave the applicants additional time to pay the remainder of the court fees of MDL 12,200 (EUR   751). The court argued that the applicants were both employed and without further examination of their sources of income and their family situation, concluded that they had not presented proof of their inability to pay the court fees. 6.     On 5 April 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice finally refused to examine their case due to the non-payment of the court fees. 7.     The applicants complain under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about excessive court fees and the Supreme Court of Justice’s superficial examination of their financial situation. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 8.     The applicants complained about the lack of access to the Supreme Court of Justice due to excessive court fees and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect. They relied expressly on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. 9.     The Court reiterates that the role of Article 6 in relation to Article 13 is that of a lex specialis , the requirements of Article 13 being absorbed by the more stringent requirements of Article 6 (see Grzęda v. Poland [GC], no.   43572/18, § 352, 15 March 2022). Therefore, master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, the Court considers it appropriate to examine the applicants’ complaint solely from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Malahov v. Moldova , no. 32268/02, §   39, 7 June 2007). 10.     The Court notes that the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the limitation of their right of access to a court is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 11.     The applicants submitted that the Supreme Court of Justice had refused to partially exempt them from the payment of court fees without due consideration to their financial situations. In particular, they relied on the evidence they had submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice regarding their financial and family situation (unemployment of one applicant, recent birth of twins and maternity leave of the other applicant) and on the fact that based on similar circumstances the Chișinău Court of Appeal had agreed to partially exempt them from the payment of the court fees. The applicants argued that the imposed court fees were disproportionately high and that the additional time they had been given by the Supreme Court of Justice to pay the full amount had not been an effective way of safeguarding their right of access to a court. They submitted that the Supreme Court of Justice had failed to examine the evidence provided and to give reasons for its rejection. 12.     The Government disagreed, arguing that the applicants had simply failed to substantiate their alleged inability to pay the court fees. According to the Government, the applicants had only submitted copies of their work cards ( carnet de muncă ) which confirmed their employment. In addition, the Government argued that the applicants had lost their case before the first instance and appellate courts and that respectively their appeal on points of law had no prospect of success before the Supreme Court of Justice. Lastly, they argued that in any event the applicant had been given additional time to pay the court fees in full. 13.     The general principles concerning access to a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and more specifically the requirement to pay court fess have been summarized in Kreuz v. Poland , no.   28249/95, §§ 52-7, ECHR 2001-VI; and Malahov v. Moldova , no.   32268/02, §§ 25-30, 7 June 2007; Weissman and Others v. Romania , no.   63945/00, § 37, ECHR 2006-VII (extracts). A summary of domestic law provisions is available in Malahov v, Moldova (cited above, § 16). 14.     The Court notes at the outset that the Supreme Court of Justice relied on the provisions of the law in refusing to examine the applicants appeal on points of law, namely their failure to pay the court fees. Accordingly, the Court needs to examine whether, in rejecting the applicants request for partial exemption from the payment of court fees, the Supreme Court of Justice took into the account all the particular circumstances of the applicants’ ability to pay them (see Clionov v. Moldova , no. 13229/04, § 40, 9 October 2007 ). 15.     The Court notes that according to the entry stamp by the registry, on 15 March 2013 the applicants had submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice supporting evidence concerning their family and financial situation (see paragraph 4 above). These elements were pertinent for the assessment of whether the applicants’ qualified for an exemption of court fees and were brought to the knowledge of the domestic courts. However the Supreme Court of Justice concluded that the applicants had been employed (see paragraph 5 above) and that no further details concerning their financial situation had been submitted in support of their request to be exempted from the payment of court fees. The court did not provide any reasons for rejecting the evidence submitted by the applicants, which attested to their unemployment and temporary work incapacity due to recent childbirth, and their low income. It is not the Court’s task to examine the applicants’ ability to cover the court fees in the present case, it being first for the national courts to determine questions of that nature. However, in these circumstances, the Court cannot but conclude that the Supreme Court of Justice made assertions without giving any reply to the evidence in the case, with the result that the impugned proceedings fell short of the requirement of a fair hearing and in a denial of access to a superior court. 16.     The Court concludes that the Supreme Court of Justice failed to carry out a proper assessment of the applicants’ ability to pay the court fees and as a result refused to examine their appeal on the merits. In these circumstances, the Court considers that in the instant case the limitations in question impaired the very essence of the applicants’ right to access to a court. 17.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 18.     The applicants claimed 61,000 euros (“EUR”) in respect of pecuniary damage corresponding to the amount of their debt which they had been ordered to pay by the national courts, also including the court and enforcement fees. They claimed EUR 40,000 for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the psychological suffering caused to them; EUR 6,000 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and EUR   1,000 for costs incurred before the Court. They provided several contracts and receipts for legal assistance. 19.     The Government considered that the sums claimed were exaggerated and unsubstantiated. 20.     The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. However, it awards the applicants jointly EUR 3,600 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 21.     Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 1,000 in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts to be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)   EUR 3,600, (three thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii)   EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, 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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 September 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Martina Keller   Georgios A. Serghides   Deputy Registrar   President