Přehled
Rozhodnutí
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18207/14
LEGAL TUR S.R.L.
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 February 2026 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. 18207/14) 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 20 February 2014 by a company, Legal Tur S.R.L. (“the applicant company”), which has its registered office in Chişinău and was represented by Mr N. Leşan, a lawyer practising in Chişinău;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning legal certainty and insufficient reasons given by the domestic courts to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, Mr D. Obadă, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns legal certainty, reasons for judgments, and the protection of property.
2. In 1994 the applicant company bought a building and registered it in its name. On an unknown date the Ialoveni local authority initiated court proceedings to annul the relevant contract of sale. On 10 October 2011 the District Economic Court found that the 1994 contract was valid and that the applicant company was therefore the rightful owner of the building.
3. In the meantime, in October 2010, the applicant company had asked the Cadastral Office for information about the building and had found out that it had been registered in the real estate register as belonging to the local authority. It had started court proceedings to register the building in its own name.
4. On 18 July 2012 the first-instance court rejected the applicant company’s claims as unfounded. That judgment was overturned by the Court of Appeal on 26 December 2012. On 21 August 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the decision of the lower court and upheld the judgment delivered by the first-instance court.
5. Still on 21 August 2013 the building was registered in the real estate register as belonging to the applicant company, on the basis of the judgment of 10 October 2011.
6. On 28 August 2013 the applicant company sold the building to another company, V.H.G.
7. In the years that followed, the applicant company and V.H.G. were involved in several sets of court proceedings against the authorities concerning the disputed building.
8. The applicant company complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the proceedings to register the building in its own name had been unfair, in particular because the Supreme Court of Justice had failed to give sufficient reasons for its decision, especially with respect to the matter of the validity of the 1994 contract, which had already been upheld in the judgment of 10 October 2011. The applicant company further complained of the retroactive application of the law.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
9. The Government submitted that the application had to be rejected as an abuse of the right of application because of the applicant company’s failure to inform the Court of issues that were highly important for the admissibility of the application. In particular, the applicant company had not mentioned that it had sold the disputed building to V.H.G. on 28 August 2013.
10. In reply, the applicant company did not deny having sold the building.
11. The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Řehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; and Red Union Fenosa S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.), no. 40738/10, 20 February 2018). Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007).
12. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that, when presenting the factual background to the case in the application form, the applicant company did not provide any information about the fact that, some six months before lodging the present application, it had sold the disputed property to another company.
13. The Court reiterates that in principle, the new owner of a property can claim in court all the rights which the old owner could have asserted (see Business Şi Investiţii Pentru Toţi v. Moldova, no. 39391/04, § 31, 13 October 2009). Conversely, an application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention if the applicant cannot or can no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 34, 24 October 2002). The Court notes that when lodging its application on 20 February 2014, the applicant company was no longer the owner of the building over which it claimed to have lost its property rights as a result of the impugned court decisions. Only after the Government had raised that issue in their observations did the applicant company acknowledge having concluded the contract of sale with V.H.G.
14. The Court considers that the information concerning the sale of the disputed property to a third party before the lodging of the present application was of great importance for the determination of its admissibility. The applicant company did not provide convincing reasons for the failure to provide that information. Having regard to the importance of the information at issue for the proper determination of the present case, the Court finds that the applicant company’s conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention.
15. In view of the above, the application must accordingly be rejected as an abuse of the right of application, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 5 March 2026.
Martina Keller María Elósegui
Deputy Registrar President