CASE OF SUŞCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF SUŞCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

(Application no. 64990/16)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

16 January 2025

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

In the case of Suşco v. the Republic of Moldova,

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

 Kateřina Šimáčková, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 December 2024,

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 4 November 2016.

2.  The applicant was represented by Mr C. Tănase, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.

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

THE FACTS

4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

THE LAW

6.  The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that he had no effective remedy in this connection. He relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.

7.  The Government argued that the applicant has no victim status, considering that the insolvency proceedings concerned company “C” and not its administrator.

8.  The Court notes that the applicant is the majority shareholder of company “C” with 90,62% shares and that he was removed from the management of the company in the course of the insolvency proceedings. He submitted that he was to receive most of the assets remaining after the company’s insolvency and that he remained in a state of uncertainty concerning such property for an excessive period of time. Moreover, the applicant submitted that he had a procedural standing in the insolvency proceedings, representing the interests of the debtors and therefore his personal interests had been directly affected. Considering that the applicant had a procedural standing in the proceedings and that his patrimonial interests, separately from those of C., were affected by the prolonged state of uncertainty, and in the light of the circumstances of the case as a whole, the applicant can, in the Court’s opinion, claim to be a victim of the excessive duration of the insolvency proceedings within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and therefore dismisses the Government’s objections regarding the lack of the victim status.

9.  The Government additionally submitted that the applicant had intentionally omitted to inform the Court about a large number of complaints and requests which he had made in the course of the insolvency proceedings, and which influenced the overall length of the proceedings. They argued that that omission on the part of the applicant constituted an abuse of the right of individual application and therefore asked the Court to dismiss the application on that ground.

10.   The Court notes that the conduct of the parties was one of the aspects which had been examined by the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the alleged excessive duration of the insolvency proceedings under Law no. 87. Since that information was thus part of the domestic file and was reflected in the judgments submitted to the Court, the applicant cannot be considered as having abused the right of individual application. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection regarding the abuse of the right of individual application.

11.  To sum up, the Court notes that this application is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

12.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

13.  In the leading cases of Cravcenco v. Moldova, no. 13012/02, 15 January 2008, and Cristea v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 35098/12, 12 February 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

14.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

15.  The Court further notes that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.

16.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.

17.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Cravcenco, and Cristea, both cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Kateřina Šimáčková
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

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