OCUL A OSTATNÍ proti Moldavsku

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF OCUL AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

(Application no. 10120/18)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

25 September 2025

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

In the case of Ocul and Others v. the Republic of Moldova,

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

Andreas Zünd, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 4 September 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 February 2018.

2. The applicants’ details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Mr S. Barbăneagră, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.

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

THE FACTS

4. In 2011 the first four applicants and family members of the fifth and sixth applicants sued a State-owned company, C.M., for salary arrears, late payment interest and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. After the death of their family members who had acted as the claimants in the domestic proceedings, their successors, the fifth and sixth applicants, Ms Elena Hristea and Mr Stanislav Moraru, pursued the domestic proceedings in their late relatives’ stead.

5. On 24 April 2012 the Buiucani District Court ordered C.M. to pay the claimants the salary arrears in specific amounts and also awarded each of them 5,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. That judgment was upheld on appeal by the Chișinău Court of Appeal on 23 January 2013 and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 18 December 2013.

6. On 28 March 2014 the applicants initiated enforcement proceedings against the company-debtor C.M. However, due to the lack of any assets owned by C.M., the final judgment could not be enforced.

7. In view of the lengthy non-enforcement of the final judgment, in 2016 the applicants lodged an action against the Ministry of Justice under law no. 87, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

8. On 10 November 2016 the Buiucani District Court partially granted the applicants’ claims, finding a violation of their right to enforcement of a final judgment, and awarded MDL 10,000 (equivalent to 450 euros at the time) to each of the applicants for non-pecuniary damage. The court rejected the applicants’ claims for pecuniary damage as manifestly ill-founded, holding that the bailiff had taken all the necessary steps to enforce the final judgment. This judgment was upheld by the Chișinău Court of Appeal on 16 February 2017 and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 16 August 2017.

9. On 2 March 2017 the Chișinău Court of Appeal instituted insolvency proceedings against C.M.

10. On 16 June 2022 the Chișinău District Court approved the final liquidation report of the state-company C.M. and ordered its removal from the State Register of Legal Entities. There is no evidence that the applicants had received any payments following C.M.’s liquidation.

THE LAW

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

11. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of the domestic decision given in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

12. The Government submitted that the application is premature considering that the insolvency proceedings against C.M. are still pending, while the applicants are included in the list of C.M.’s creditors and they may eventually receive the outstanding payments.

13. The Court notes that enforcement proceedings against C.M. were initiated on 28 March 2014 but proved unsuccessful due to C.M.’s lack of assets. Subsequent insolvency proceedings were instituted on 2 March 2017, and the applicants were placed on the list of the company’s creditors. By the time the insolvency proceedings commenced, the debtor company had already been unable to satisfy creditors’ claims for some time. The Government has not demonstrated how the insolvency proceedings would satisfy the applicants’ claims, given C.M.’s lack of assets. The Court also does not lose sight of the fact that in June 2022 the domestic court had approved the liquidation report for C.M. company and ordered its exclusion from the State Register. The Government’s objection as to the premature nature of the complaints should therefore be dismissed. It follows that these complaints are not premature or manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

14. The Court notes that C.M. was a 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, as confirmed by its statute. In view of C.M.’s organisation and significant control exercised by the State over its activity, the State is to be held responsible for any debts incurred by C.M. (see, mutatis mutandis, Cooperativa Agricolă Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, no. 39745/02, § 19, 3 April 2007; Clionov v. Moldova, no. 13229/04, § 29, 9 October 2007).

15. 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 C.M. (see paragraph 14 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 meet their obligation in this regard (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 70, ECHR 2009).

16. The Court notes that, to date, even after the liquidation of C.M., the judgment given in favour of the applicants remains unenforced. Given the finding of the State liability for the debts owed to the applicants in the present case (see paragraph 14 above), the period of non-enforcement should not be limited solely to the enforcement stage, but should also encompass the period of debt recovery during the insolvency proceedings, as well as the period following the conclusion of those proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 35091/02 and 9 others, § 53, ECHR 2004-XII). While liquidation proceedings may objectively justify some limited delays in enforcement, the continuing non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour for over eleven years could hardly be justified in any circumstances (see Yershova v. Russia, no. 1387/04, § 72, 8 April 2010).

17. 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 had already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

18. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument 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 necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the judgment in the applicants’ favour.

19. 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

20. Considering that the applicants had no other means of recovering the salary arrears following the liquidation of the State-owned company, C.M., and having regard to the documents in its possession and its case‑law (see, in particular, Cristea, Botezatu, and Pomul S.R.L. and Subervin S.R.L., all cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. 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 final domestic judgment in the applicants’ favour;
3. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, 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;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 September 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

(non-enforcement of domestic decision)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[3] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.