FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF TEGULUM S.A. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 53982/11)
JUDGMENT
(Just satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
5 March 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Tegulum S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Diana Sârcu,
Sébastien Biancheri, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 February 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case concerns the revocation of the applicant company’s right to exploit a limestone and gravel quarry. The applicant company complained of a violation of its rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 6 of the Convention.
2. In a judgment delivered on 1 February 2022 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that, even assuming that it had been lawful, the revocation of the applicant company’s right to exploit the Vărăncău quarry on account of its non-use of the site had been disproportionate and that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Court also held that there was no need to examine the applicant company’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention separately (see Tegulum S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova [Committee], no. 53982/11, §§ 35‑36 and 38, 1 February 2022).
3. Under Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant company sought just satisfaction in the form of the restitution of the right to exploit the Vărăncău mineral deposit or, alternatively, 134,941,029.96 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, representing loss of profit and actual losses. It also claimed EUR 70,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and EUR 5,045.76 in respect of costs and expenses.
4. The Court awarded the applicant company EUR 5,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and EUR 5,045.76 in respect of the costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings before the Court. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision as regards pecuniary damage, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant company to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., § 45 and point 4 of the operative provisions).
5. The applicant company and the Government each filed observations, which were transmitted to the other party for comments.
6. In its observations on just satisfaction, the applicant company reiterated the claims that it had submitted at the merits stage and submitted new claims. They are set out below (see paragraphs 17-18 below).
FACTS after thE COURT’s princiPal judgment
7. After the delivery of the principal judgment, both the Government Agent and the applicant company sought to reopen domestic proceedings in view of achieving restitutio in integrum. In particular, the applicant company sought the reopening of proceedings and a fresh examination of its claims seeking the annulment of the administrative acts that had revoked its right to exploit the Vărăncău quarry (see paragraph 12 of the principal judgment).
8. On 4 May 2022 the Supreme Court of Justice granted both requests, ordered the reopening of proceedings and quashed the final judgment of 13 April 2011 (ibid., § 17). The court sought to remedy the violation found by the Court in the principal judgment and retained the case for a fresh examination of the applicant company’s appeal (ibid., §§ 15-16).
9. On 27 July 2022 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the applicant company’s appeal and ruled in its favour. The court found that the applicant company had acquired – under Act no. 485 of 11 March 2009, which had defined the perimeter within which it could conduct mining operations at the Vărăncău quarry – the right to exploit limestone and sand‑gravel deposits at the site until they were exhausted. It also held that the administrative acts that had revoked that right had been contrary to the law.
10. By a letter of 12 April 2022, the Environmental Protection Inspectorate (“the Inspectorate”) informed the applicant company that the M. company had – according to official reports submitted by it – extracted 13,360 cubic metres of limestone from the Vărăncău quarry between 2010 and 2022. However, the Inspectorate assessed the volume of limestone extracted during that period at 19,480 cubic metres. The letter stated that the remaining deposit of limestone had been assessed at 1,952,520 cubic metres.
11. By a letter of 9 August 2022, the State Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources (“the Agency”) informed the Ministry of the Environment that the M. company had reported that, between 2010 and 2021, it had extracted 112,952 cubic metres of sand-gravel and 19,383 tonnes of limestone from the site.
12. By a letter of 26 December 2022, the Inspectorate informed the applicant company that after an on-site inspection of the Vărăncău quarry, it had been found that the M. company had unlawfully extracted 73,599 cubic metres of sand-gravel. The Inspectorate notified the Prosecutor General’s Office of those findings.
13. On 11 January 2023 the Agency revoked the M. company’s right to exploit the limestone deposits at the Vărăncău quarry and reinstated Act no. 485 of 11 March 2009, which had defined the applicant company’s mining perimeter at the site. On 17 February 2023 the applicant company was informed of that decision.
14. The applicant company submitted that, after notifying it that its mining rights had been reinstated (see paragraph 13 above), the Agency had refused to accept a report that the applicant company had prepared on the extraction of limestone and sand-gravel from the quarry. The Agency had argued that the State register contained no data on sand‑gravel reserves within the applicant company’s mining perimeter. Contending that the refusal of the Agency to accept the report had prevented it from exploiting sand-gravel deposits at the Vărăncău quarry, the applicant company initiated court proceedings against the Agency. The proceedings are pending.
15. The applicant company submitted that it had encountered other difficulties in exercising its right to exploit the Vărăncău quarry. In particular, it had initiated court proceedings against the local authority in respect of its refusal to sign a lease agreement for the relevant mining perimeter, and against the Agency in respect of its decision to issue the M. company a new permit to evaluate tripoli and sand-gravel deposits at the quarry within a perimeter which overlapped with the applicant company’s mining perimeter. Those proceedings are also pending.
THE LAW
16. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
Pecuniary damageThe parties’ submissions17. In its observations the applicant company as part of restitutio in integrum asked for the restitution of the right to exploit the Vărăncău mineral deposit and for compensation in the amount of the value of the minerals extracted from the site by third parties between 2010 and 2022, which it assessed at 24,799,490 Moldovan lei (MDL – EUR 1,205,684.82). That amount corresponded to the market value (less extraction costs) of the sand‑gravel and limestone sold by the M. company between 2014 and 2022 (that is, 19,383 tonnes of limestone and 112,952 cubic metres of sand-gravel). The relevant calculations were based on a valuation made on 2 December 2022 by an expert hired by the applicant company (see paragraph 19 below).
18. If the restitution of its mining rights was impossible for any reason, the applicant company asked for compensation based on the market value of the Vărăncău mineral deposit. According to the valuation made on 2 December 2022 by an expert hired by the applicant company, the deposit was worth MDL 1,753,227,103 (EUR 85,237,208.93). That amount corresponded to the market value (less extraction costs) of the estimated mineral reserves at the time of the breach in 2010, namely 8,477,300 tonnes of limestone and 950,500 cubic metres of sand-gravel.
19. The valuation report of 2 December 2022, submitted by the applicant company, assessed the market price of a tonne of limestone at MDL 556 (with extraction costs of MDL 39), and a cubic metre of sand-gravel at MDL 193 (with extraction costs of MDL 30). The report noted that the applicant company had entered into contracts for the sale of limestone at MDL 512 per tonne and of sand-gravel at MDL 162 per cubic metre.
20. The applicant company also submitted its financial statements for the years 2008-17, which indicated net profits of around MDL 385,000 in 2008, MDL 960,000 in 2009 and 2010 and MDL 1,600,000 in 2011, and losses thereafter.
21. The applicant company submitted that, owing to the administrative difficulties that it had encountered (see paragraphs 14-15 above), it could not be considered that its mining rights had been fully reinstated, despite the favourable outcome of the reopened domestic court proceedings (see paragraphs 9 and 13 above).
22. The Government disputed the amounts claimed by the applicant company as unsubstantiated and excessive. In particular, they submitted that the applicant company’s right to exploit the quarry had been reinstated de jure and de facto once the administrative acts interfering with that right had been annulled (see paragraphs 9 and 13 above).
23. They argued that no award should be granted in respect of the quantity of gravel allegedly mined by third parties between 2010 and 2022, noting that the applicant company had never acquired the right to exploit sand-gravel deposits at the Vărăncău quarry because those deposits had never been recorded in the State register as being within its mining perimeter.
24. As for compensation in respect of the limestone extracted during the period in question, the Government disputed the information on which the valuation submitted by the applicant company had been based, questioning the reliability of the relevant geological and financial data. They did not submit an alternative valuation or other geological and financial data; rather, they noted that an assessment was to be made in the course of a criminal investigation into the unlawful revocation of the applicant company’s mining rights.
25. They submitted that, according to an analysis made by the criminal investigating authority, the applicant company had made a net profit of MDL 1,906,849 between 2008 and 2013. Between 2014 and 2022 the M. company, which had been exploiting the Vărăncău quarry along with other quarries, had made a net profit of MDL 1,360,186. The Government concluded that in the light of that data, the claims of the applicant company before the Court were highly excessive and unsubstantiated.
The Court’s assessment26. A judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 32, ECHR 2000-XI). If domestic law does not allow – or allows only partial – reparation to be made for the consequences of the breach, Article 41 empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as it deems appropriate. The Court enjoys a certain discretion in the exercise of that power, as the adjective “just” and the phrase “if necessary” attest. Among the matters which the Court takes into account when assessing compensation are pecuniary damage, that is the loss actually suffered as a direct result of the alleged violation, and non-pecuniary damage, that is reparation for the anxiety, inconvenience and uncertainty caused by the violation. In addition, if one or more heads of damage cannot be calculated precisely or if the distinction between pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage proves difficult, the Court may decide to make a global assessment (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000‑IV).
27. The Court notes that after the delivery of its principal judgment, the relevant domestic proceedings were reopened and resulted in a final judgment which reinstated the administrative acts authorising the applicant company to exploit the limestone and sand-gravel deposits at the Vărăncău quarry (see paragraphs 9 and 13 above).
28. The applicant company submitted that various difficulties had prevented the full reinstatement of its mining rights (see paragraph 21 above). The Court observes that the difficulties encountered by the applicant company in effectively exercising its mining rights were not the subject of the proceedings before it which resulted in the finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Those difficulties occurred only after the restoration of the applicant company’s mining rights, and domestic proceedings are pending in respect of them (see paragraphs 14‑15 above). For that reason, the Court concludes that the applicant company’s mining rights have been restored with the reinstatement of Act no. 485, namely because the annulment of that Act had amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as found in the principal judgment.
29. The Court further notes that the applicant company was not awarded any other compensation in respect of the impossibility of exercising its mining rights from October 2010 (when its mining rights were revoked – see paragraph 12 of the principal judgment) until January 2023 (when its mining rights were reinstated – see paragraph 13 above). The Court is accordingly called to rule on this matter.
30. In that connection, the Court notes the conflicting data concerning the amount of minerals extracted by third parties during the relevant period. In particular, according to the Inspectorate, 19,480 cubic metres of limestone were legally extracted and 73,599 cubic metres of sand-gravel were illegally extracted (see paragraphs 10 and 12 above). At the same time, according to the Agency, the M. company reported that it had extracted 112,952 cubic metres of sand‑gravel and 19,383 tonnes of limestone (see paragraph 11 above). The Government have not provided any explanation for those discrepancies.
31. While the Court is ready to accept 19,383 tonnes as an estimate of the amount of limestone extracted during the relevant period, the situation concerning sand-gravel is less straightforward.
32. The Court observes that Act no. 485 explicitly refers to the applicant company’s right to exploit both limestone and sand-gravel deposits within the same perimeter (see the findings of the domestic courts detailed in paragraph 9 above). At the same time, there is a pending domestic dispute concerning additional administrative acts which were allegedly necessary for the exploitation of sand-gravel, such as State registration of the deposits in question (see paragraph 14 above). There is also the related disagreement between the applicant company and the Government in the proceedings before the Court concerning the applicant company’s alleged entitlement to compensation in respect of the sand-gravel extracted between 2010 and 2022 (see paragraph 23 above). Despite the deposits allegedly not being recorded in the State register, it appears that the M. company – which from 2010 to 2022 was authorised to conduct mining operations within the perimeter in question – did in fact report that it had extracted sand-gravel (see paragraph 11 above). However, an investigation into the lawfulness of that extraction by the M. company is also pending (see paragraph 12 above).
33. The Court finds that the scope of the applicant company’s mining rights was not at issue in the proceedings which led to the principal judgment and that the dispute concerning the extraction of sand-gravel and compensation in that regard is primarily for the respondent State to resolve, giving due consideration to the principle of “good governance” (see Ibrahimbeyov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 32380/13, § 53, 16 February 2023). For those reasons, the Court will proceed with an assessment of the applicant company’s claim for compensation in respect of the extraction of limestone only.
34. In the opinion of the Court, the applicant company’s estimation of the profits which it would have earned from running its quarrying business had there been no violation of the Convention involves a certain degree of speculation as to the quantities of the minerals extracted during the period in question (in tonnes and cubic metres) and their market value. While the Government disputed the calculations submitted by the applicant company, they did not provide the Court with any alternative data or calculation methods.
35. Accordingly, in assessing the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant company, the Court has, as far as appropriate, considered the estimates provided to it in respect of the amount of material extracted (see paragraph 31 above), its market price, the costs of extraction and related taxes (see paragraph 19 above) and the applicant company’s net profits before the breach of its rights in late 2010 (see paragraph 20 above).
36. Without speculating on the profits which it would have made if the violation of the Convention had not occurred, the Court observes that the applicant company suffered a real loss of value of the mineral deposit as a result of the violation found in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Könyv-Tár Kft and Others v. Hungary (just satisfaction), no. 21623/13, § 34, 5 October 2021). Having regard to the number of imponderables involved and the impossibility of quantifying the loss in exact terms, the Court considers that it must rule in equity. It therefore awards the applicant company EUR 450,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
Costs and expenses following the Court’s principal judgment37. The applicant company claimed EUR 10,131.87 for the legal fees incurred, after the principal judgment, in the reopened domestic proceedings and the proceedings before the Court. It submitted invoices and proof of payments in the amount of MDL 200,000 (approximately EUR 10,132).
38. The applicant company further claimed MDL 50,000 (approximately EUR 2,451) for experts’ fees incurred in the just satisfaction proceedings and submitted relevant invoices and payment receipts.
39. The Government argued that those claims were not sufficiently substantiated, that there had been no need for two lawyers to work on the case and that in any event the amounts claimed were excessive.
40. In the present case, regard being had to all the documents submitted and the award made in the principal judgment in respect of costs and expenses, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant company the additional amount of EUR 7,500 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable to it on that amount.
Default interest41. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Holds(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 450,000 (four hundred and fifty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 7,500 (seven 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant company’s claim for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Martina Keller María Elósegui
Deputy Registrar President