F.P.C. DESCRIM S.R.L. proti Moldavsku

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF F.P.C. DESCRIM S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

(Application no. 1322/20)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

27 November 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of F.P.C. Descrim S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Andreas Zünd, President,
Diana Sârcu,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 6 November 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application 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 17 December 2019.

2. The applicant company was represented by Mr V. Harmaniuc, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.

3. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4. The applicant company’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5. The applicant company provided services to company T., for which it was not paid. Company T. is a heating supplier whose majority shareholder at the time was the Chișinău Municipality, holding 70.9 % of its shares.

6. After company T. failed to pay for the services provided, the applicant company initiated civil proceedings to recover the contractual debts. On 3 July 2001 the Economic District Court granted the applicant company’s claims and ordered company T. to pay 484,213 Moldovan lei (MDL).

7. On 29 November 2001 the Economic District Court initiated insolvency proceedings against company T. A special creditors control committee was established to oversee the insolvency process and the distribution of assets. The committee is composed of five state-owned companies, which together hold 91% of the debt claims against company T.

8. On 28 September 2014 the Parliament of Moldova adopted Law No. 188, specifically addressing the insolvency proceedings of company T. The law stipulated that all assets intended for the production, distribution, and supply of thermal energy were to be transferred to the state-owned company C. as compensation for its debt. The completion of the assets transfer was subsequently confirmed by Government Decree No. 407 of 16 June 2015. Along with the assets, company C. also took over the heating supply operations and all of the company T.’s clients.

9. Between 2004 and 2023, the applicant company received several payments totalling MDL 37,108 (equivalent to 1,850 euros (EUR)). As of the date of the parties’ latest submissions, the remaining amount owed to the applicant company was MDL 346,362 (equivalent to EUR 17,530). The insolvency proceedings against company T. are still pending.

10. On 13 August 2018, in view of the non-enforcement of the final judgment, the applicant company initiated proceedings against the Ministry of Justice under Law No. 87 seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

11. On 16 November 2018 the Buiucani District Court rejected the applicant company’s claims as manifestly ill-founded, holding that company T. was undergoing insolvency proceedings and that the State could not be held liable for its debts. This judgment was upheld by the Chișinău Court of Appeal on 28 February 2019 and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 10 July 2019.

THE LAW

1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF the CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1

12. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant company complained about the non-enforcement of the final domestic decision issued in its favour against company T.

1. Government’s request to strike out the application on the basis of the unilateral declaration

13. On 22 September 2023 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration acknowledging the violation of the applicant company’s rights to the enforcement of a final judgment and requesting the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. They proposed paying to the applicant company EUR 1,600 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses and argued that these amounts, together with the acknowledgement of the violation of the applicant company’s rights would constitute sufficient just satisfaction in the present case.

14. By letter of 16 November 2023 the applicant company disagreed with the unilateral declaration and objected to the striking out of its application from the Court’s list of cases. It submitted that besides the non-pecuniary damage it had also suffered significant pecuniary damage which is not compensated by the unilateral declaration and requested the Court to continue the examination of the application.

15. The Court reiterates the principle set in Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece ([GC] (just satisfaction), no. 25701/94, § 72, 28 November 2002) according to which a judgment in which it finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach. The Court is of the opinion that this principle is also applicable in cases as the present one, where the Government seeks to obtain strike-out decision by means of unilateral declaration (see Decev v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 7365/05, § 18, 24 February 2009).

16. In the light of the circumstances of the case, the Court is not convinced that the compensation proposed by the Government would restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach. In particular, the Court notes that in admitting that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Government have not proposed sufficient compensation for pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.

17. For the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the Government have failed to submit a statement offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, by contrast, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2001‑VI).

18. This being so, the Court rejects the Government’s request to strike out the application under Article 37 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the case.

2. Admissibility and merits

19. The applicant company complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decision given in its favour. It relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

20. The Court notes that company T.’s independence was limited by the existence of strong institutional links with the municipality and by constraints related to the use of its assets and property. This is confirmed by the subsequent transfer to company C. of the company T.’s assets ordered by the State through Law No. 188 and Government Decree No. 407 (see paragraph 8 above). Although company T. enjoyed a certain degree of economic independence, the municipality was its majority shareholder and exercised full control over its operations. Accordingly, notwithstanding company T.’s status as a separate legal entity, the municipal authority, and hence the State, is to be held responsible under the Convention for its acts and omissions, as well as for any debts incurred by company T. (see, mutatis mutandis, Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, no. 39745/02, § 19, 3 April 2007; Clionov v. Moldova, no. 13229/04, § 29, 9 October 2007; Yershova v. Russia, no. 1387/04, § 62, 8 April 2010).

21. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II). Considering the State’s liability for the debts of company T. (see paragraph 20 above), the Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-III). It is for the Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that the competent authorities can meet their obligation in this regard (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 70, ECHR 2009).

22. In the present case, the company T.’s debts were found to be imputable to the State authorities, which had thus to ensure that the judgment debt was paid in a timely and appropriate manner. While liquidation proceedings may objectively justify certain limited delays in enforcement, the continued non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicant company’s favour for over twenty-four years can hardly be justified in any circumstances (see Yershova, cited above, § 72).

23. In the leading cases of Cristea v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 35098/12, 12 February 2019, Botezatu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 17899/08, 14 April 2015 and Pomul S.R.L. and Subervin S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova, nos. 14323/13 and 47663/13, 24 October 2023, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

24. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any facts or arguments capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the present case the authorities did not deploy all the necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decision in the applicant company’s favour.

25. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

2. OTHER COMPLAINTS

26. The applicant company also complained under Article 13 of the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

3. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

27. The Court notes that the applicant company attempted to recover its debt through insolvency proceedings for over twenty-three years and only succeeded in recovering a part of it. Moreover, according to the materials submitted to the Court, there have been little to no payments in recent years. The Government has not demonstrated that, following the transfer of assets to company C., company T. possessed any other assets that could be used to satisfy the applicant company’s debt. Therefore, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant company’s claims for just satisfaction.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out of its list of cases;
2. Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic decision admissible and holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints under Article 13 of the Convention;
3. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic decision;
4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 November 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

(non-enforcement of domestic decisions)

1. Plus any tax that may be chargeable.

2. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

3. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.