OZIMOC proti Moldavsku

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 564/21
Veaceslav OZIMOC
against the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 September 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 19 December 2020,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Veaceslav Ozimoc, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Chișinău. He was represented by Mr I. Ungurean and Mr V. Berliba, lawyers practising in Chișinău.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of a domestic decision and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”). The Government were represented by their acting Agent, Ms D. Maimescu.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

On 11 May 2009 the Chișinău Court of Appeal delivered a judgment obliging the Chișinău municipality to provide the applicant, a police officer at the time, and members of his family with social housing to which he was entitled during his service. Enforcement proceedings were instituted on 19 June 2009.

In 2014 the applicant initiated court proceedings under Law No. 87 (first set of the proceedings), seeking the enforcement of the final judgment in his favour and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 18 January 2017, by the final decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, which upheld the lower courts’ judgments, the applicant was awarded 10,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent at the time to 520 euros (EUR)) for non-pecuniary damage covering the period of the non-enforcement from 11 May 2009 to 11 July 2014.

In 2018 the applicant started another set of proceedings under Law No. 87 (second set of the proceedings) seeking the enforcement of the final judgment in his favour and compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the subsequent period of the non-enforcement. On 24 June 2020, by the final decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, which upheld the lower courts’ judgments, the applicant was awarded MDL 15,000 (equivalent at the time to EUR 700) for non-pecuniary damage covering the period of the non-enforcement from 11 July 2014 to 22 July 2019.

In 2020 the applicant brought yet another action under Law No. 87 (third set of the proceedings) complaining about the non-enforcement of the final judgment and asking for the compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the subsequent period of the non-enforcement from 22 July 2019 to 11 December 2020 and compensation for pecuniary damage, which represented the rent he had paid from July 2014 to December 2020 for alternative accommodation. The proceedings were still pending before the Supreme Court of Justice at the time of the parties’ latest submissions.

In accordance with the facts established by the domestic courts and as follows from the Government’s submissions not disputed by the applicant, the applicant received rent compensation between 2018 and 2020, provided under Government Decision No. 646/2018, to police officers during their service, as an alternative to providing social housing, and on 29 September 2020 he retired from the police.

THE LAW

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non‑enforcement of the final judgment and about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.

The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints were inadmissible due to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies given that the third set of the compensation proceedings was still pending before the domestic courts. They additionally requested to declare the application abusive, because the applicant had failed to inform the Court about the third set of the proceedings.

The applicant argued that he had exhausted the domestic remedies having initiated the two first sets of the compensation proceedings which covered the period of the non-enforcement starting on 11 May 2009 and until 22 July 2019, while the third set of the proceedings concerned the non-enforcement between 22 July 2019 and 11 December 2020 and included a new claim for pecuniary damage incurred between July 2014 and December 2020, previously not examined by the courts.

The Court rejects the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies considering that the applicant had successfully lodged two compensatory claims. It reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual petition if, among other reasons, important new developments have occurred during the proceedings before the Court and where, despite being expressly required to do so by Rule 47 § 7 (former Rule 47 § 6) of the Rules of Court, the applicant has failed to disclose that information to the Court, thereby preventing it from ruling on the case in full knowledge of the facts. However, even in such cases, the applicant’s intention to mislead the Court must always be established with sufficient certainty (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014). Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the third set of the proceedings concerned the subsequent period of the non-enforcement, and they are still pending. It rejects the Government’s arguments related to the alleged abuse of the right of individual petition by the applicant, given that his failure to inform the Court about the third set of the pending proceedings could not influence the substance of his complaints about the lengthy non‑enforcement of the final judgment. The Court does not establish any intention of the applicant to mislead it.

The Government also contended that the applicant had lost his “victim status” after the domestic courts had expressly acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s right to the enforcement of a final judgment and offered adequate and sufficient redress, which is consistent with the awards made by the Court in similar cases.

The applicant argued that in view of the absence of any compensation for pecuniary damage and of the insufficient amount of compensation for the non-pecuniary damage, he continued to be a victim of the non-enforcement of the final judgment. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the domestic remedy against the non-enforcement of a final judgment was not effective.

The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the violation of the applicant’s rights and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see Kurkut and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 58901/19 and 6 others, § 85, 25 June 2024, and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 180, ECHR 2006-V).

The Court observes that before the domestic courts, both in the first and second set of the proceedings, the applicant had only claimed compensation for the non-pecuniary damage, while the claim for compensation for pecuniary damage (the price of renting an apartment) was for the first time brought in the third set of the proceedings, which are still pending before the domestic courts.

The Court further observes that as follows from the documents submitted by the Government, the applicant received the rent compensation between 2018 and 2020, provided under Government Decision No. 646/2018, to him as a police officer during his service, as an alternative to social housing. At the same time, on 29 September 2020 he retired from the police and thus was no longer able to claim the provision of the social service housing. As for the claims for pecuniary damage, they are subject to final determination by the domestic courts in the third set of the proceedings where they were raised by the applicant for the first time during the period of non-enforcement.

The Court notes that in the context of the first two sets of the compensation proceedings the domestic courts recognised in substance the violation of the applicant’s right to the enforcement of the final judgment and awarded him compensation for the non-pecuniary damage equivalent to EUR 1,220 for the period from 11 May 2009 to 22 July 2019, while the third set of the proceedings pending before the domestic courts refers to the period of the non-enforcement after 22 July 2019.

The Court finds that the amounts awarded by the domestic courts in the present case are comparable to those awarded by the Court in similar cases (see, for instance, Pomul S.R.L. and Subervin S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova (nos. 14323/13 and 47663/13, 24 October 2023); Daniliuc v. the Republic of Moldova [Committee] (no. 33751/21, 23 January 2025); Mereacre and Others v. the Republic of Moldova [Committee] (no. 9353/13, 18 January 2024); and Gîrbu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova [Committee] (no. 72146/14, 5 October 2023)).

Considering that the applicant did not claim compensation for the pecuniary damage (the price of renting an apartment) in the first two sets of the proceedings, he received rent compensation at the domestic level for alternative accommodation, had retired from the police in September 2020 and thus lost the right to employment social housing, and taking into account that the amount of compensation for the non-pecuniary damage awarded to him by the domestic courts cannot be considered disproportionate, the Court finds that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of his complaints about the non-enforcement of the final judgment. Accordingly, the applicant’s complaints are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention arguing that he had no effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint about the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings.

The Court has found the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to be inadmissible. Accordingly, he had no “arguable claim” of a violation of those Articles and the applicant cannot derive from Article 13 a right to a remedy in respect of the alleged violation. It follows that this part of the application must also be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 9 October 2025.

Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd
Acting Deputy Registrar President