CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s1720DE1F { width:132.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 55374/16 GHIOFRIG S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20   November 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Andreas Zünd , President ,   Diana Sârcu,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 September 2016, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Ghiofrig S.R.L., is a company incorporated in the Republic of Moldova in 1999. It was represented by Mr I. Chirtoacă, a lawyer practising in Chișinău. 2.     The applicant company claimed that it had acquired the right to operate a quarry but later had been unlawfully deprived of it for the benefit of another private company. It complained before the Court that the final decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 23 March 2016, by which it set aside the lower courts’ judgments in its favour, amounted to a violation of its right to a fair trial and to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. 3.     The applicant company’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention were communicated to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”). 4.     Following the communication of the present case, the Government asked the Supreme Court of Justice to reopen the domestic proceedings in the case, seeking the acknowledgment of a violation of the applicant company’s rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1, as well as the payment of compensation for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage, including costs and expenses, within the limits of the awards made by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention. The request for revision was sent to the applicant company which was invited to submit comments and additional monetary claims before the Supreme Court of Justice. 5.     By a decision of 18 January 2023, the Supreme Court of Justice granted the request for revision and acknowledged the violation of the applicant company’s rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1. It also set aside its own final decision of 23   March 2016 and retained the case for a fresh examination. The Supreme Court of Justice – by directly applying Article 41 of the Convention – further awarded the applicant company 3,600 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, noting at the same time that the applicant company had failed to submit additional claims for pecuniary damage and to substantiate its claims in respect of the sought costs and expenses. 6.     By a final decision of 28 May 2025, the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the appeal on points of law lodged by the opposing party and upheld the lower courts’ judgments delivered in favour of the applicant company. It does not follow from the materials in the domestic case file that the applicant company had updated its claims for pecuniary damage before the domestic courts within the reopened court proceedings. THE LAW 7.     In their observations, the Government, referring to the outcome of the review proceedings, argued that the applicant company had obtained restitutio   in   integrum and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases pursuant to Article 37 of the Convention. 8.     In response, the applicant company opposed this conclusion, submitting that, notwithstanding the judgment delivered in its favour in the review proceedings, it had not benefited from the enforcement thereof. It further argued that the damages awarded by the domestic courts were insufficient to deprive it of its status as a “victim” within the meaning of the Convention. 9.     The Court observes that, by its decision of 28 May 2025, the Supreme Court of Justice declared the opposing party’s appeal on points of law inadmissible and upheld the lower courts’ decisions in favour of the applicant company, which, however, do not appear to have been enforced yet. In this connection, the Court notes that it is open to the applicant company to seek the execution of the final decision of 28 May 2025 in its favour and, if necessary, to lodge a new application before the Court related to the execution thereof, with the scope of the present application having been limited to the fairness of the initial domestic proceedings and the effect of those domestic decisions on the applicant company’s property rights. 10.     Furthermore, the Court notes that the applicant company did not submit any claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage in the context of the review proceedings. The Court has, however, consistently held that applicants who are afforded such a remedy by the domestic courts, following a finding of a violation of the Convention or its Protocols, are required to submit their claims for compensation to those courts (see, among other authorities, Daniel–P S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.), no.   32846/07, 20 March 2012; TV-Zvtoni v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.), no.   35153/10, 16 December 2014; and Gutul and Others v.   the   Republic of Moldova (dec.), no. 19234/08, 11 October 2016). In the absence of such a claim by the applicant company, the Court cannot conclude that the review proceedings did not provide it with an adequate opportunity to obtain redress for the alleged violations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1. 11.     The Court observes that the applicant company’s complaint concerned the Supreme Court of Justice’s admission of the opposing party’s appeal on points of law, which resulted in the quashing of the judgment in its favour. It notes that, at the request of the Government, this decision was subsequently overturned and, upon review, the opposing party’s appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible. The Court therefore considers that the situation complained of by the applicant company – namely the loss of a favourable judgment – no longer persists, and that any potential consequences arising from a possible breach of the right to a fair trial or of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions have been remedied, and the applicant company was also awarded sufficient compensation in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage, which was within the limits of the awards made by the Court under Article   41 of the Convention. 12.     In view of the above, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine . 13.     Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 December 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Andreas Zünd   Acting Deputy Registrar   President