CASE OF CEDRON-G.I.S. SRL v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF CEDRON-G.I.S. SRL v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

(Application no. 75193/16)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

23 October 2025

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

In the case of Cedron-G.I.S. SRL v. the Republic of Moldova,

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

 Gilberto Felici, President,
 Diana Sârcu,
 Sébastien Biancheri, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 75193/16) 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 2 December 2016 by Cedron-G.I.S. SRL (“the applicant company”), which was incorporated in the Republic of Moldova in 2001 and represented by Mr D. Harea, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their former Agent, Mr D. Obadă;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 2 October 2025,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case concerns an alleged breach of the principle of legal certainty and of the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions on account of the admission of a time-barred action brought by a private company (the P. company) against the applicant company. The applicant company relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

2.  In the framework of insolvency proceedings in respect of the P. company, instituted in 2015, a liquidator of that company identified several outstanding payments of a total amount of 100,011 Moldovan lei (MDL – equivalent to 4,690 euros (EUR) at the relevant time) on the basis of nine invoices dating from 2008 and 2009, which had remained unpaid by the applicant company at that time. On 3 December 2015 the liquidator brought an action before the Chișinău Court of Appeal, seeking the validation of, and the obligation to pay, the debt allegedly owed by the applicant company to the P. company. The applicant company argued that the action had been time‑barred since the three-year limitation period, provided for in Article 267 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”) at the relevant time, had expired in 2011 and 2012.

3.  By a judgment of 28 March 2016, the Chișinău Court of Appeal admitted the liquidator’s action. It noted that the liquidator had only become aware of the existence of the applicant company’s debt to the P. company in 2015 and, therefore, the limitation period for bringing the action had not expired. The court ordered that the applicant company pay the full amount of the debt, that is, the sum of MDL 100,011 (equivalent to EUR 4,462 at the relevant time). It also ordered that the applicant company pay MDL 3,000 (equivalent to EUR 134 at the relevant time) in respect of court fees.

4.  The applicant company challenged that judgment. It reiterated that the action had been time-barred on account of the expiry of the statutory time‑limit.

5.  By a final decision of 18 May 2016, the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant company’s appeal on points of law as manifestly ill‑founded. It relied on the same reasons as the first-instance court in respect of the interpretation of the moment when the limitation period had started to run.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

6.  The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts had admitted a time-barred action brought by company P., contrary to the principle of legal certainty.

7.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

8.  The applicant company submitted that, by upholding the action brought by the P. company after the expiry of the general three-year limitation period provided for in the CCP, the domestic courts had breached the principle of legal certainty guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It contended that the domestic courts ought to have rejected the liquidator’s court action as time‑barred.

9.  The Government disagreed, arguing that the liquidator of the P. company had been entitled to lodge the impugned action within three years from the moment when she had learnt about the existence of debts unpaid by the applicant company.

10.  The general principles concerning the principle of legal certainty in civil proceedings have been summarised in Baroul Partner-A v. Moldova (no. 39815/07, §§ 36-37, 16 July 2009).

11.  The Court notes at the outset that, under Articles 267 and 272 of the CCP, as in force at the relevant time, the general limitation period for introducing a court action was three years as from the date when the right of action arose, which was the day when a person became aware or should have become aware of a breached right, whereas under Article 273 of the CCP the assumption of the debt should not have affected the running of the limitation period.

12.  The Court observes that the applicant company was supposed to make the payments in 2008 and 2009. Therefore, the limitation period would have authorised the creditor to seek payment of the debts by 2011 and 2012 respectively, at the latest. The fact that the liquidator of the P. company only became aware of those debts in 2015 did not trigger a new three‑year limitation period, which had already expired by that time. In this regard, the Court cannot discern a plausible explanation from the judgment of the Chișinău Court of Appeal as to why it applied another time-limit for accepting the liquidator’s action which otherwise would have been time-barred. The Government also did not provide any explanation. The Court finds, therefore, that the judgment of the Chișinău Court of Appeal amounted to a denial of justice in the applicant company’s case (see, mutatis mutandis, Anđelković v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 27, 9 April 2013) and the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice failed to redress the deficiencies in the first‑instance court’s judgment.

13.  In such circumstances, the Court concludes that the interpretation given by the domestic courts of the rules concerning the prescribed time‑limit for bringing an action in court had an effect which was incompatible with the principle of legal certainty as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (compare Baroul Partner-A, cited above, § 41).

14.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

15.  The applicant company further complained about a breach of its right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and the merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

16.  The applicant company claimed 4,596 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the total amount which the domestic courts ordered it to pay together with the court fees (see paragraph 3 above). It also claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage on the basis of the disruption of its activity because of a temporary seizure of its bank accounts.

17.  The Government submitted that the claims were excessive and, in any event, unsubstantiated.

18.  The Court cannot speculate as to whether the applicant company would have suffered any pecuniary damage had the breach of Article 6 § 1 not taken place; it therefore rejects that claim. In this connection, the Court notes that Article 449 (h) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the possible revision of a judgment where the Court has found a violation of fundamental rights and liberties. On the other hand, the Court awards the applicant company EUR 3,600 for non-pecuniary damage.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,600 (three thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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 amount 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 23 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Martina Keller Gilberto Felici
 Deputy Registrar President