CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 mars 2026

.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 } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .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 } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sB4BC8881 { width:33.89pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA6D16A31 { width:149.77pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 66649/13 Lidia CRIVOI against the Republic of Moldova   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12   March 2026 as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Diana Sârcu,   Sébastien Biancheri , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   66649/13) 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 8 October 2013 by a Moldovan national, Ms Lidia Crivoi (“the applicant”), who was born in 1951, lives in Donduşeni and was represented by Mr E. Fencovschi, a lawyer practising in Dondușeni; the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, Mr O. Rotari; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the adoption of a judgment affecting the applicant’s rights without involving her in court proceedings. 2 .     On 17 December 2012 N.J. won a court case against the Dondușeni regional council (“the council”), following which she was reinstated in her previously held position. Since the applicant had in the meantime been appointed to that position and lost her job as a result of the judgment of 17   December 2012, she lodged an appeal against that judgment with the Bălți Court of Appeal. She argued, in particular, that she had not been involved in the proceedings between N.J. and the council, which eventually resulted in her dismissal. The court left the appeal without examination on 4 February 2013, since the applicant, not being a party to the proceedings, did not have a right to appeal. On 10 April 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld that decision for the same reason. In the absence of an appeal by the parties to the proceedings, the judgment of 17 December 2012 became final. 3 .     The applicant requested the Supreme Court of Justice to have the case reopened ( revizuirea ) because the proceedings between N.J. and the council had affected her own rights, without involving her. On 26 June 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected that request, finding that the law expressly reserved competence for examining such requests to the court which had adopted the judgment that the applicant wanted to have reopened, i.e. the judgment of 17 December 2012. It noted that in its decision of 10 April 2013 it had not examined the merits of the case, but only dismissed an appeal in cassation against the Court of Appeal’s decision to leave the appeal without examination. 4.     The applicant complained that the failure to involve her in the court proceedings which affected her rights amounted to a breach of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention. Relevant domestic law 5.     Under Article 360 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”), an appeal against a court judgment could be lodged by the parties and their duly authorised representatives, as well as by other participants in the court proceedings, such as witnesses, experts and interpreters, in the part concerning compensation of their expenses. 6 .     Under Article 448 § 1 CCP, a request for the reopening of proceedings ( revizuirea ) could be made to the court which had adopted the judgment sought to be reopened. Under Article 449 (c) CCP, the reopening of the proceedings could be sought if the court had adopted a judgment affecting the rights of persons not involved in the proceedings. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 7.     The Government argued that the application should be declared inadmissible because the applicant had failed to properly exhaust available domestic remedies. In particular, she had not made her request for the reopening of the proceedings to the competent court, as required by law. The applicant disagreed. 8.     The Court notes that, at the relevant time, only parties and other participants in the court proceedings could lodge an appeal against a court decision (see paragraph 5 above), unlike the situation at the time of the events in Cornea v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 22735/07, § 14, 22 July 2014), where an appeal could also be lodged by a person affected by a judgment and not involved in the proceedings. 9.     At the same time, the Moldovan law provided for an extraordinary remedy specifically tailored for such situations (see paragraph 6 above). In its case-law the Court has held that extraordinary remedies should be resorted to, for example, where the quashing of a judgment that has acquired legal force is the only means by which the respondent State can put matters right through its own legal system (see Dinchev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 17220/09, § 28, 21   November 2017 and further references therein). Accordingly, the applicant had to exhaust the remedy provided in Article 448 CCP. 10.     The Court also recalls that it does not view domestic remedies as having been exhausted when an appeal is not accepted for examination because of a procedural mistake by the applicant, and where the substance of the appeal is not examined by the domestic courts (see, for instance, Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 143, ECHR 2010). 11.     In the present case, the law provided for the remedy of reopening a judgment affecting a person’s rights without involving them (Article 449 (c) CCP, see paragraph 6 above). However, it expressly reserved competence to examine requests for such reopening to the court which had adopted the judgement to be reopened, as explained by the Supreme Court of Justice (see paragraph 3 above). However, the applicant never lodged a request for the reopening of the judgment of 17   December 2012 with the first-instance court which had adopted that judgment, as required by law. Moreover, it is apparent that the court decisions of 4   February, 10 April and 26 June 2013 did not deal with the substance of the complaint, finding the request inadmissible for procedural reasons instead. 12.     The application must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 2 April 2026.     Martina Keller   María Elósegui   Deputy Registrar   President