CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 2 avril 2026

.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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF AVICOLA VULCANESTI S.A. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 1441/15)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 2 April 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Avicola Vulcanesti S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting 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.   1441/15) 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”) by a company registered in the Republic of Moldova, Avicola Vulcanesti S.A. (“the applicant company”), on 15 December 2014, which was represented by Mr   D.   Harea, a lawyer practising in Chișinău; the decision to give notice to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, Mr D. Obadă, of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning equality of arms and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 12 March 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: Subject matter of the case 1.     The case concerns the applicant company’s inability to become acquainted with and to comment on the opposing party’s submissions to the court before that court overturned a lower court’s judgment. 2.     On 19 December 2013 the applicant company brought a court action against G., another company, claiming damages for the late enforcement of a previous judgment in its favour whereby G. had been ordered to pay a debt to the applicant company. 3.     On 5 May 2014 the Commercial District Court partly accepted the applicant company’s claims and ordered G. to pay it 174,431 Moldovan lei (equivalent to 9,332 euros at the material time). 4.     On 7 May 2014 G. lodged an unreasoned appeal on points of law and specified that it would lodge a fully reasoned one once the court had published its reasoned judgment. The court sent the applicant company a copy of that submission and informed it that the date of examination of the appeal on points of law had been set for 16 June 2014. According to the applicant company, it did not receive any other submission from G. until the latter date. According to the Government, on 22 May 2014 the court sent a copy of the fully reasoned appeal on points of law to the applicant company. 5.     By a final judgment of 16 June 2014, adopted without the parties’ participation, the Chișinău Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s judgment and adopted a new one, rejecting the applicant company’s claims as unfounded. In its judgment it noted the applicant company’s position, as well as that of G. and its main arguments, which had not been included in G.’s unreasoned appeal on points of law of 7 May 2014. One of those arguments (that the opposing party had in fact not missed the relevant time-limit) largely coincided with the main reason for the court’s rejecting the applicant company’s claims. 6 .     On an unknown date after the final judgment had been published, the applicant company’s representative obtained access to the court’s case file. He allegedly found a copy of G.’s reasoned appeal on points of law there. On 4   December 2014 he requested information about the document from the Chișinău Court of Appeal. On 8   January 2016 the President of the civil bench of the Chișinău Court of Appeal informed the applicant company that G.’s reasoned appeal on points of law had not been registered and did not bear an entry number of that court because it had not been received by its registry, having been handed to the judge rapporteur via his clerk on 16 June 2014. The Court’s Assessment ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicant company complained of a violation of the principle of equality of arms, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It argued that the domestic court’s failure to forward to it a copy of G.’s reasoned statement and to allow it sufficient time to prepare its written counter-arguments had effectively created an advantage for G. 8.     The Government submitted that the reasoned appeal had been sent to the applicant company on 22 May 2014. The applicant company had not asked for additional time to prepare its submissions, thus effectively accepting the court’s examination of the appeal on the basis of the documents in the file. Although it had been aware of the pending appeal and of the date of its examination, the applicant company had neither inquired about its fate nor submitted its arguments. 9.     The Court notes that the application is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. 10.     The Court reiterates that the adversarial principle and the principle of equality of arms, which are closely linked, are fundamental components of the concept of a “fair hearing” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They require a “fair balance” between the parties: each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case under conditions that do not place them at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis their opponent or opponents (see, for instance, Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, § 146, 19 September 2017). The extent to which undisclosed submissions influence the court’s assessment is not decisive from the point of view of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (see, for instance, Gracia Gonzalez v. Spain , no. 65107/16, § 73, 6 October 2020). 11.     In the present case, the Court notes that G. made a reasoned appeal, the contents of which were reflected in the court’s judgment. Regardless of whether, as was apparently the case here, the court’s reasons (partly) coincided with the submissions made to it, the other party should have had the possibility of acquainting itself with the contents of any submission to the court and to make its own submissions. However, there is nothing in the file to confirm that the applicant company was sent a copy of G.’s reasoned appeal. Moreover, it could not have been sent on 24 May 2014, as argued by the Government, in view of the fact, which was confirmed by the court itself (see paragraph 6 above), that G.’s reasoned appeal was never formally registered by that court and that the judge rapporteur received it via a clerk on the day when the court adopted its judgment (16 June 2014). Even if a copy of that appeal had been sent on 16 June 2014 to the applicant company, it obviously would not have had the time to receive that before the court adopted its decision on the same day. Therefore, being unaware of the existence of a reasoned appeal, the applicant company could not ask for time to prepare its submissions in reply. The applicant company was therefore put at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis the other party, which was able to attempt to influence the court with its submissions. 12.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     The applicant company claimed 433,136 Moldovan lei (MDL – approximately 21,618 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage and MDL 100,000 (approximately EUR   4,990) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 14.     The Government submitted that these amounts were unfounded and, in any event, excessive. 15.     The Court notes that it has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the “equality of arms” requirement. However, it cannot speculate as to the outcome of the proceedings had the domestic court sent a copy of G.’s appeal to the applicant company and received the latter’s submissions in reply. It therefore sees no relationship between the breach of the Convention found and the pecuniary damage claimed. It therefore makes no award in that connection. The Court notes, however, that under the Moldovan law the finding of a violation of a Convention right allows the applicant company to request the reopening of the domestic proceedings. At the same time, the Court awards the applicant company EUR 3,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company. 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   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months, EUR 3,600 (three thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 applicant company’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 April 2026, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Martina Keller   María Elósegui   Deputy Registrar   President