TIRAMISA S.R.L. proti Moldavsku

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF TIRAMISA S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

(Application no. 40005/21)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

27 November 2025

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

In the case of Tiramisa 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 28 July 2021.

2. The applicant company was represented by Mr D. Manolache, a lawyer practising in Orhei.

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 entered into commercial relations with company R., a State-owned entity established by the Prison Administration Department for the acquisition and supply of food products intended for detainees.

6. Following company R.’s failure to fulfil its payment obligations, the applicant company initiated court proceedings seeking the recovery of the contractual debt. On 11 March 2015 the Orhei District Court granted the claim and ordered company R. to pay 111,334 Moldovan lei (MDL) to the applicant company. Enforcement proceedings were initiated on 22 April 2015 and on 1 July 2016 the applicant company recovered MDL 26,008 after the sale of company R.’s assets.

7. On 22 October 2018 the enforcement title was returned to the applicant company with a note that the remaining MDL 85,326 (the equivalent of 3,780 euros (EUR) at the time) could not be recovered, as company R. had no other enforceable assets. The applicant company challenged that decision and on 8 July 2020 the decision was quashed. Bailiffs were ordered to resume the enforcement proceedings against company R.

8. In the meantime, having been unable to obtain the full enforcement of the judgment, the applicant company sued the Ministry of Justice, under Law No. 87, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage. By the final decision of 14 April 2021, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the applicant company’s claims as manifestly ill-founded, having held that the bailiff had taken all the necessary steps to enforce the judgment of 11 March 2015, but that the judgment remained unenforced because company R. had no assets, while the State could not be held responsible for the debt.

9. The enforcement proceedings against company R. were still pending on the day of the parties’ latest submissions.

THE LAW

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

10. The applicant company complained about the non-enforcement of the final judgment in its favour, having relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

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

11. 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 to pay EUR 1,600 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses and argued that this amount, together with the acknowledgement of the violation of the applicant company’s rights, would constitute sufficient just satisfaction in the present case.

12. By letter of 21 November 2023 the applicant company disagreed with the unilateral declaration and objected to the striking out of its application. It submitted that it had also incurred significant pecuniary damage, having been unable to obtain the full enforcement of the judgment, which could not be compensated by the unilateral declaration, and requested the Court to continue the examination of the application.

13. The Court reiterates the principle set out 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 of the Convention 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 a unilateral declaration (see Decev v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 7365/05, § 18, 24 February 2009).

14. 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 to the Convention, the Government have not proposed sufficient compensation for pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.

15. 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).

16. 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 of the case

17. 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).

18. In the present case, the Court notes that company R. is the State-owned company and even though it enjoyed a certain degree of economic independence, the State was its sole founder and exercised full control over it. Moreover, company R. performed specific public duties, under the supervision of State authorities, such as the supply of food products to detainees. Following the partial enforcement of the final judgment through the sale of company R.’s assets, the recovery of the remaining MDL 85,326 (equivalent to EUR 3,780 at the time) proved impossible due to the absence of any other assets belonging to company R. Despite the court’s decision to resume the enforcement proceedings against company R., the final judgment in favour of the applicant company remains unenforced to date. Moreover, the Government have not demonstrated that company R. possesses any assets that would enable the applicant company to recover the outstanding amount in the future.

19. In view of company R.’s nature of activity, ownership and significant control exercised by the State over its activity, the State is to be held responsible for any debts incurred by company R. (see, mutatis mutandis, Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, no. 39745/02, § 19, 3 April 2007 and Clionov v. Moldova, no. 13229/04, § 29, 9 October 2007).

20. Considering the State’s liability for the debts of company R., 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).

21. 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.

22. 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.

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

2. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

24. The Court notes that the applicant company has attempted to recover its debt through enforcement proceedings for over ten years and has only succeeded in recovering a small part of it. The Government have not demonstrated that company R. had 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 application admissible;
3. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non‑enforcement of the domestic decision;
4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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 a domestic decision)

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.