FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29195/15
Mihail MADAN
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 October 2025 as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Diana Sârcu,
Sébastien Biancheri, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 29195/15) 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 11 June 2015 by a Moldovan national, Mr Mihail Madan (“the applicant”), who was born in 1956, lives in Durlești, and was represented by Mr V. Roşca, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their acting Agent, Ms D. Maimescu;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. This case concerns the quashing of a decision favourable to the applicant by the Supreme Court of Justice, without giving him the opportunity to comment on the appeal lodged by the opposing party, allegedly infringing his property rights.
2. The applicant owns a plot of land and a house. His house is attached to another house situated on a separate plot of land that had previously belonged to his father. Between the two houses, and structurally connected to both, is a shared annex used as a veranda. In order to install a heating source, the applicant erected a wall on the veranda, dividing it into two sections, identified on the cadastral plan as annex “A” and annex “A3”.
3. Following the death of the applicant’s father, his house was inherited by A.M. She refused to allow the applicant to demolish the wall and to regain possession of the entire veranda, which the applicant claimed was his property.
4. On 16 February 2011 the applicant lodged a civil claim against A.M., seeking the removal of obstacles preventing his use of the veranda.
5. On 24 December 2013 the Buiucani District Court allowed the applicant’s claim, ordering A.M. not to prevent the applicant from demolishing the wall. The court found, on the basis of decisions of the local executive committee dated 15 March 1987 and 11 April 1988, and an expert report dated 15 March 2013, that the entire veranda belonged to the applicant. It further noted that neither the inheritance documents nor the cadastral records identified the veranda as being part of A.M.’s property.
6. On 2 July 2014 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first‑instance court, adopting the same reasoning.
7. On 2 September 2014 A.M. lodged an appeal on points of law against the decisions of the lower courts, challenging both the factual findings and the application of the law.
8. On 17 December 2014 the Supreme Court of Justice admitted A.M.’s appeal on points of law, overturned the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court found that the veranda identified as annex “A”, claimed by the applicant, was situated on land lawfully owned by A.M. and served as the sole entrance to her house. It further noted that the wall in question had been constructed along the boundary line separating the two plots, effectively dividing the veranda between the two owners. In accordance with the local executive committee’s decision of 11 April 1988, the applicant had been authorised to construct only half of the veranda (8.6 square metres), marked on the cadastral plan as annex “A3”. The remaining part of the veranda, marked as annex “A”, had never been legalised, yet it was located on A.M.’s property.
9. On 11 June 2015 the applicant lodged an application with the Court, alleging a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. He complained that the Supreme Court of Justice had overturned a decision favourable to him without giving him the opportunity to comment on the appeal lodged by the opposing party, thereby infringing his property rights.
10. On 22 September 2021 the Court gave notice of the application to the Government.
11. On 16 December 2021, in the context of friendly settlement proceedings initiated by the parties, the applicant filed a request for a review of the Supreme Court of Justice’s decision of 17 December 2014.
12. On 9 February 2022 the Supreme Court of Justice granted the applicant’s request, set aside its decision of 17 December 2014 and retained the case for further examination.
13. On 11 May 2022 the Supreme Court of Justice, after giving the applicant the opportunity to comment on A.M.’s appeal on points of law, admitted the appeal, quashed the Chișinău Court of Appeal’s decision of 2 July 2014 and remitted the case for re-examination by a new panel of judges. The re‑examination was ordered on the grounds that the court had been unable to determine the precise boundaries of the plots or the surface area of the veranda, making it unclear which section was used by each party.
14. On 21 February 2023 the Chișinău Court of Appeal admitted A.M.’s appeal, overturned the Buiucani District Court’s judgment of 24 December 2013 and dismissed the applicant’s claims as manifestly ill‑founded. The appellate court adopted the same reasoning as the Supreme Court of Justice in its decision of 17 December 2014 (see paragraph 8 above).
15. The applicant complained that the proceedings had been unfair and in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, arguing that the Supreme Court of Justice, by its decision of 17 December 2014, had overturned a judgment favourable to him without giving him the opportunity to comment on the appeal lodged by the opposing party, thereby infringing his property rights.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
16. The Government argued that the applicant had lost his victim status after the Supreme Court of Justice had, on 9 February 2022, reopened the proceedings, acknowledged that the applicant had not received a copy of A.M.’s appeal on points of law, set aside its previous decision of 17 December 2014 and retained the case for further examination.
17. The applicant submitted that the Supreme Court of Justice had failed to expressly acknowledge the breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. He argued that the re‑examination of the case did not constitute sufficient redress, given that the Chișinău Court of Appeal’s decision of 21 February 2023 had not changed his situation and the infringement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 remained unresolved. Accordingly, he maintained that he had retained his victim status. He further submitted that Article 6 § 1 had in any event been violated owing to the excessive length of the proceedings, pointing out in his most recent submissions that his initial claim had been lodged on 16 February 2011 and was still pending. Lastly, he argued that the Government’s plea of inadmissibility was belated and should not be taken into consideration, pursuant to Rule 55 of the Rules of Court.
18. In response to the applicant’s objections, the Government submitted that the review proceedings had been initiated within the framework of the friendly settlement procedure agreed upon by both parties. Accordingly, the applicant had consented to that procedure as an appropriate form of redress for the alleged violations in his case. The Government further pointed out that, following the granting of the request for review, the applicant’s case had been remitted for re-examination and he had been given the opportunity to defend his property rights in the context of a new set of proceedings. In response to the applicant’s argument that the Supreme Court of Justice had failed to expressly acknowledge the violation of his rights, the Government submitted that the Supreme Court of Justice had, in substance, recognised the violation. The court had reproduced the provisions of Article 6 § 1, pointing out the error that had been made in the earlier proceedings. In doing so, it had directly addressed the core issue that had led to the violation of the applicant’s rights, thereby confirming its detrimental impact on the overall fairness of the judicial process. In response to the applicant’s assertion that the infringement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 remained unresolved, the Government submitted that, during the re-examination of the case by the Chișinău Court of Appeal, the applicant had been given the opportunity to present all his arguments and evidence in that court. As to the alleged violation of the “reasonable time” requirement, the Government submitted that the applicant had not raised that complaint in his initial application before the Court and that it could not therefore be raised at such an advanced stage of the proceedings. Lastly, regarding the allegation that the Government’s plea of inadmissibility was belated, the Government argued that the applicant had failed to indicate when, in his view, would have been the appropriate time to raise such an objection.
19. At the outset, the Court notes that the Government were allowed to submit their observations until 2 September 2024 and that they did so on 13 August 2024. The Government’s submissions were not therefore out of time and will be taken into consideration by the Court.
20. In his most recent submissions to the Court, the applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 owing to the excessive length of the proceedings, pointing out that the initial claim had been lodged on 16 February 2011 and that the proceedings were still pending following their reopening. The Court notes that there is nothing in the documents in its possession to suggest that the applicant exhausted the available domestic remedy under Law no. 87 of 21 April 2011 (see, for more details, Balan v. Moldova, 44746/08, (dec.), § 13, 24 January 2012). Since he failed to raise the issue of the excessive length of proceedings before the domestic courts, his complaint under Article 6 § 1 must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies.
21. As regards the Government’s objection concerning the applicant’s loss of victim status, the Court reiterates that it falls first to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention. In this regard, the question whether the applicant can claim to be a victim of the violation alleged is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 54-55, ECHR 2009 (extracts)). A decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 71, ECHR 2006-V). The appropriateness and sufficiency of redress depend on the nature of the violation complained of by the applicant (see Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 70, 2 November 2010).
22. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that, following the review proceedings initiated by the applicant, the Supreme Court of Justice, on 9 February 2022, reopened the proceedings, tacitly accepted and acknowledged in substance a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, set aside its previous decision of 17 December 2014 and retained the case for further examination, allowing the applicant to submit his arguments and supporting documents. The Court considers that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the reopening of the proceedings by the Supreme Court of Justice was the most appropriate way to redress the violation of Article 6 § 1, given that, in the earlier proceedings, the applicant had not been given an opportunity to comment on the appeal lodged by the opposing party.
23. As to the applicant’s argument that the outcome of his claim remained unchanged, the Court notes that the present case concerns a civil‑law dispute between private parties. It reiterates, in this connection, that such disputes do not, as such engage the responsibility of the State under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Zagrebačka banka d.d. v. Croatia, no. 39544/05, § 250, 12 December 2013). The State is under an obligation to afford the parties to the dispute judicial procedures which offer the necessary procedural guarantees and therefore enable the domestic courts and tribunals to adjudicate effectively and fairly in the light of the applicable law (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007-I). In view of the re‑examination of the case following the reopening of the proceedings, the Court considers that the State discharged its positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by providing a proper forum for the applicant to defend his rights before a court with full jurisdiction, even if the outcome remained unfavourable to him.
24. The Court considers that the measures adopted by the domestic courts as a result of the review proceedings constituted appropriate redress in the circumstances of the case and that the applicant must therefore be regarded as having lost his victim status in relation to the present application. The Court therefore concludes that the applicant is no longer a victim of the alleged violations, and that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 13 November 2025.
{signature_p_1} {signature_p_2}
Martina Keller María Elósegui
Deputy Registrar President