LUX-STIL S.R.L. proti Moldavsku

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF LUX-STIL S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

(Application no. 6705/23)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

11 December 2025

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

In the case of Lux-Stil 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 20 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 23 January 2023.

2. The applicant company was represented by Mr D. Grecu, 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 its relevant information is set out in the appended table.

5. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

6. In 2016 the applicant company obtained a licence for operating casinos. The license was prepaid for the entire period for which it was issued. After two months authorities recalled the license, and the applicant company ceased its activity.

7. In 2018 the applicant company claimed the return of the remaining license tax in court, in the amount of 718,108 Moldovan lei ((MDL) – equivalent to 36,000 euros (EUR) at the time). On 30 June 2020 the Chișinău Court of Appeal, in the final decision, granted the claim and order the Ministry of Finance to return the remaining licence tax.

8. On 25 August 2020 the applicant company submitted the court’s decision to the Ministry of Finance for enforcement, accompanied by the writ of execution. On 6 June 2021 the applicant company resubmitted the execution writ, after the Chișinău Court of Appeal had corrected errors in both the decision and the writ at the request of the Ministry of Finance.

9. In September 2021, having been unable to obtain the enforcement of the final judgment, the applicant company sued the Ministries of Justice and of Finance under Law No. 87, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 23 December 2021 the Chișinău District Court rejected the claim, holding that the applicant company had failed to submit the execution writ to a bailiff and thus to initiate the enforcement proceedings, while the overall length of the enforcement proceedings was, in any respect, not excessive. That judgment was upheld by the Chișinău Court of Appeal on 23 June 2022 and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 9 November 2022.

10. After the notice of the present application had been given to the Government, the applicant company asked the Chișinău Court of Appeal to reopen the domestic proceedings under Law No. 87. On 1 February 2024 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the request, quashed its own decision of 23 June 2022 on the grounds of the existence of a fundamental flaw in the previous procedure and ordered a fresh examination of the applicant company’s appeal. After the reopening, the proceedings under Law No. 87 were still pending before the Chișinău Court of Appeal at the time 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

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

12. 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).

13. In the leading cases of Cristea v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 35098/12, 12 February 2019 and Botezatu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 17899/08, 14 April 2015, the Court had already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

14. The Court observes that the burden to ensure compliance with a judgment against the State lies primarily with the State authorities starting with the date when the judgment becomes binding and enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 69, ECHR 2009). In the present case, the judgment against the State became enforceable on 30 June 2020, after the final decision of the Chișinău Court of Appeal, and remained unenforced at the time of the parties’ latest submissions, which exceeded four years. As to the alleged failure of the applicant company to start the enforcement proceedings by submitting the writ of execution to a bailiff, the Court notes that a person who has obtained judgment against the State at the end of legal proceedings may not be expected to bring separate enforcement proceedings (see Sharxhi and Others v. Albania, no. 10613/16, § 93, 11 January 2018). Moreover, on 25 August 2020 the applicant company had submitted to the Ministry of Finance the final decision of the Chișinău Court of Appeal and the writ of execution. Later, on 6 June 2021, it resubmitted the writ of execution after it had been corrected at the request of the Ministry of Finance. It also appears that having quashed the decision of 23 June 2022, the domestic courts confirmed the appropriate venue chosen by the applicant company to obtain the enforcement of the judgment.

15. 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 make all necessary efforts to fully and promptly enforce the decisions in the applicant company’s favour.

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

2. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

17. The applicant company also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective domestic remedy related to the non-enforcement of the final judgment. Having regard to the findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal issues raised by the applicant company and that there is no need to examine separately its remaining complaints.

3. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

18. The applicant company claimed EUR 21,370 in respect of pecuniary damage (the late payment interest for the period between 1 July 2020 and 2 October 2023), EUR 2,100 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 540 in respect of costs and expenses.

19. The Government did not comment on these claims.

20. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and its case‑law (see, in particular, Cristea, and Botezatu, both cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remaining claims of the applicant company for just satisfaction.

21. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the final judgment which remains enforceable.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the delayed enforcement of the domestic decision in the applicant company’s favour admissible and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining part of the application;
2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
3. Holds that the respondent State shall ensure the enforcement of the domestic decision referred to in the appended table, by appropriate means and within three months;
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;

Dismisses the remainder of the applicant company’s claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 December 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 or delayed 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.