CASE OF COOPERATIVA DE CONSTRUCŢIE A LOCUINŢELOR NR. 162 v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF COOPERATIVA DE CONSTRUCŢIE A LOCUINŢELOR NR. 162 v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

(Application no. 13948/15)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

4 December 2025

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

In the case of Cooperativa de Construcţie a Locuinţelor nr. 162 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. 13948/15) 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 10 March 2015 by Cooperativa de Construcție a Locuințelor nr. 162 (“the applicant company”), incorporated in the Republic of Moldova in 1994, and represented by Mr V. Chetruşcă, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;

the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning access to a court to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agents, Mr D. Obadă and Ms D. Maimescu, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 13 November 2025,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The application concerns an alleged breach of the right of access to a court because of the domestic courts’ refusal to examine the applicant company’s court actions owing to its alleged inability to pay the statutory court fees. The applicant company relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

2.  The applicant company is a non-profit condominium association which, inter alia, intermediates relations between private consumers and public service providers. It mainly collects money from tenants for thermal energy, water and sewerage and transfers it to corresponding service providers.

3.  On 2 October 2014 the applicant company filed two civil suits against two groups of individuals, requesting payment of debts in the sums of 25,471 Moldovan lei (MDL – equivalent to 1,383 euros (EUR) at the material time; “case no. 1”) and MDL 34,379 (equivalent to EUR 1,867 at the material time; “case no. 2”) respectively, for utility services that had already been provided. Relying on Article 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it sought to be exempted from paying court fees in respect of both cases of MDL 764 (equivalent to EUR 41 at the material time) and MDL 1,031 (equivalent to EUR 56 at the material time) respectively, corresponding to 3% of the claim pursued, according to the legal provisions in force at the relevant time. It argued and proved that its sole bank account had been seized on the ground of its inability to pay outstanding bills from a service provider, and that it was unable to pay the court fees otherwise.

4.  By two rulings of 3 and 6 October 2014, the Ciocana District Court dismissed the applicant company’s civil suits and refused to examine the merits of the cases until it paid the requisite court fees. It stated that the applicant company had not fully described its financial situation. The court invited the applicant company to pay the court fees for each case within three weeks and within five days respectively. Instead, on 15 and 17 October 2014 respectively the applicant company requested again to be exempted from paying the court fees. It submitted documents from a bank and several other entities to prove that its sole bank account had been seized on account of arrears it had accumulated in respect of thermal energy costs because of individual debtors’ failure to pay the relevant bills.

5.  The District Court dismissed the applicant company’s exemption requests in respect of both cases on 23 and 24 October 2014 respectively, finding that the applicant company had failed to pay the court fees as ordered on 3 and 6 October 2014 respectively. It also noted that other condominium associations had paid their court fees and there was no reason to treat the applicant company differently. The applicant company appealed, arguing in particular that its inability to pay court fees had been caused by the defendants’ failure to pay their debts.

6.  By two final decisions of 10 and 16 December 2014, the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals on points of law lodged by the applicant company. It merely noted that the applicant company had failed to pay the court fees. In its decision of 10 December, the court made no reference to the applicant company’s argument that its only bank account had been seized and that it was unable to pay the required court fees, whereas in its decision of 16 December it noted that the applicant company might have other bank accounts or could have obtained credit to pay the court fees.

7.  Following the communication of the present case to the Government, on 29 September 2021 the Government Agent submitted a request to the Chișinău Court of Appeal to reopen the domestic proceedings in respect of the two cases, seeking the acknowledgment of a violation of the applicant company’s rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage within the limits of the awards usually made by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention.

8.  On 25 October 2021 the Chișinău Court of Appeal partially upheld the Agent’s request for the reopening of case no. 1. It set aside its own decision of 10 December 2014 on grounds of a misinterpretation of the applicant company’s request for exemption from the court fees and ordered a fresh examination of the applicant company’s appeal on points of law. The court explicitly acknowledged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention but rejected the Agent’s request to award the applicant company compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage, noting that the Government and the applicant company could reach a friendly settlement in that regard. By a final decision of 15 November 2021, the Chișinău Court of Appeal ordered the Ciocana District Court to examine the merits of case no. 1 by exempting the applicant company from payment of court fees. No information regarding further developments in case no. 1 has been submitted to the Court.

9.  The Government Agent’s request for the reopening of case no. 2, following three sets of proceedings before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, was pending before national courts as of the date of the Government’s latest submissions to the Court.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of THE CONVENTION

10.  The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to duly examine its requests for exemption from court fees on grounds of the seizure of its sole bank account in relation to its inability to pay outstanding bills from a service provider.

11.  The Government argued that the applicant company could not claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention since it had been successful before the domestic courts in case no. 1. As regards case no. 2, they raised a preliminary objection as to the premature nature of the application, arguing that the domestic courts might reach a final solution in favour of the applicant company in case no. 2, which was still pending before them, similarly to case no. 1. The applicant company disagreed. It argued in particular that the Government Agent’s request for the reopening of case no. 2 had been under examination for almost four years and there was no prospect of a favourable solution.

12.  At the outset, the Court notes that in case no. 1, on 25 October 2021, the Chișinău Court of Appeal acknowledged that there had been a violation of the applicant company’s right to access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention owing to its failure to adequately analyse the request for exemption from court fees. However, it did not afford any redress to the applicant company, referring to the role of the Government Agent in reaching an agreement with it on that matter. Furthermore, as of the date of the latest information submitted to the Court the reopening has not resulted in the examination of the applicant company’s civil action on the merits. Considering the facts above, the applicant company can therefore still claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of case no. 1.

13.  Regarding case no. 2, the Court observes that at the time when the application was introduced the relevant proceedings had been completed by a final decision refusing access to a court. It also notes that the extraordinary reopening proceedings triggered in September 2021 by the communication of the application to the respondent Government have not, as of the time of the latest information available to the Court, resulted in a recognition of a violation of the Convention and redress for the alleged violation. In these circumstances, the application cannot be seen as premature, and the applicant company can claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of case no. 2 as well. All of the Government’s objections must therefore be dismissed.

14.  The Court further notes that the application 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.

15.  The general principles concerning the right of access to a court regarding the collection of court fees have been summarised, for example, in Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, §§ 52-57, ECHR 2001-VI, with further references), Clionov v. Moldova (no. 13229/04, § 39, 9 October 2007) and Tudor‑Comert v. Moldova (no. 27888/04, § 35, 4 November 2008).

16.  The Court has consistently held that court fees and procedural costs as such do not automatically violate the right of access to a court. Refusals to waive fees must be based on relevant and sufficient grounds, ensuring that the fundamental nature of the right of access to a court is preserved. However, excessive fees or unjustified refusal of fee waivers, in view of an applicant company’s situation, can amount to a violation if they impose a disproportionate burden, effectively blocking access to the courts and impairing the very essence of the right of access.

17.  The Court must therefore determine in the present case whether the refusal of the domestic courts to grant an exemption from such fees was compatible with the applicant company’s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It observes that the court fees which the applicant company was bound to pay under domestic law do not appear to have been excessive (see paragraph 3 above).

18.  The Court notes, however, that the company’s only bank account had been seized and that it had submitted a certificate attesting to this fact. It had further argued that its financial incapacity had been a direct consequence of the outstanding debts of the parties it had been seeking to sue and that, as a legal entity, it had had no other resources at its disposal. Despite the reasons put forward by the applicant company and the evidence provided, the domestic courts rejected the exemption request without addressing this evidence or providing other sufficient reasons for their decision.

19.  In the light of these considerations, the Court finds that the refusal to grant a court fees waiver in the absence of an individualised assessment of the applicant company’s financial situation and of the link between its financial difficulties and the civil action for which access to court was sought impaired the very essence of its right of access to a court. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

20.  The applicant company claimed 59,850 Moldovan lei (equivalent to 3,050 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage (the amount of the debt it sought to collect), EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,550 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court. The applicant company submitted the contract for legal representation before the Court and a detailed timesheet, to confirm the incurred costs and expenses.

21.  The Government contested the above amounts, alleging that they were excessive.

22.  The Court cannot speculate as to whether the applicant company would have collected its debt had the breach of Article 6 § 1 not taken place; it therefore rejects that claim. However, it awards the applicant company the entire amount sought in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

23.  Furthermore, having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 1,500 for the costs and expenses related to the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company, in respect of costs and expenses;

(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 4 December 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Martina Keller Gilberto Felici
 Deputy Registrar President