10435/10

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF RAZESU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 10435/10)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 15 January 2026       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Razesu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Georgios A. Serghides, President,  Gilberto Felici,  Diana Sârcu, judges, and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 10435/10) 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 28 November 2009 by fourteen Moldovan nationals, whose relevant details are listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”) who were represented by Mr A. Postică, a lawyer practising in Chișinău; the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning access to court to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their acting Agent, Mrs D. Maimescu, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 4 December 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE THE PROCEEDINGS AT ISSUE 1.  The case concerns the striking out of the applicants’ court action in breach of domestic law. 2.  The applicants are shareholders in M., a private joint-stock company incorporated in the Republic of Moldova. Together they own 35% of M.’s shares. They suspected that M.’s executive board, headed by V.M. and with the full support of the majority owners, administered M. in a manner which endangered the company’s economic survival. Between 2006 and 2009 they unsuccessfully tried on numerous occasions to obtain information from M.’s executive board, such as its annual economic performance report, which had to be presented to all shareholders before each annual general shareholders’ meeting. Moreover, relying on additional rights of shareholders possessing more than 5% in the company, they requested that certain questions regarding M.’s performance be included in the agenda of the general shareholders’ meetings. However, this had not been accepted in any of the meetings for 2006, 2007 and 2008. 3.  On 22 April 2009 the applicants lodged a court action against M. asking for the separation of their share in the company’s assets based on Section 39 of the Law on the joint-stock companies (see paragraph 8 below). They described their numerous unsuccessful attempts to obtain information and to exercise other rights as shareholders and M.’s failure to abide by the relevant legal provisions protecting minority shareholders. On 28 April 2009 the Economic District Court accepted the case for examination and set the date for the first hearing on 4 June 2009. In order to secure evidence, it also ordered M. to provide duly certified copies of a number of documents concerning various aspects of its economic performance, as requested by the applicants. The decision of 28 April 2009 could only be appealed together with any subsequent judgment of the court on the merits of the case. 4.  On 4 June 2009 the same court rejected M.’s plea to strike the case out for failure to follow the prior settlement procedure established in Section 93 of the Law on joint-stock companies (see paragraph 8 above). 5.  Also on 4 June 2009 M. lodged an appeal on points of law before the Economic Court of Appeal against the decisions of 28 April and 4 June 2009. On 29 June 2009 the Economic Court of Appeal found that under Article 128 (3) of the Code on Civil Proceedings, a decision to secure evidence could be appealed against only together with the judgment on the substance of the case (see paragraph 7 below), which had not yet been adopted. However, under Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights everyone had the right to an effective remedy. There was therefore a collision between a national and an international legal provision, in which case the court had to apply the Convention directly. The court thus examined the appeal and found that under Section 93 (2) of the Law on joint-stock companies the decision to separate a part of a joint-stock company’s assets had to be adopted by its general shareholders at their meetings. The applicants had not challenged the decisions of the general shareholders’ meetings concerned in court. Accordingly, they had failed to follow the alternative dispute settlement procedure required in such cases. The court therefore annulled the decisions of the lower court of 28 April and 4 June 2009 and struck the case out of the list of cases. That decision was final. 6.  On 30 December 2009 the applicants lodged another court action against M. After numerous decisions to secure evidence and the quashing of those decisions by the Economic Court of Appeal, on 3 September 2018 the case was finally accepted for examination by the Chișinău Court, Centru District. According to the latest information from the parties, by October 2024 the case was pending before the first-instance court. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 7.  In accordance with Article 128 (3) of the Code on Civil Proceedings as it was in force at the time of the events, the court decision (încheiere) on securing evidence adopted during examination of the case could only be appealed together with the decision on the merits. Under article 168 (4) of the same code the first-instance court’s decision to accept a court action for examination, or to direct the plaintiff to amend the action or to submit additional documents, is not subject to any form of appeal. 8.  In accordance with section 39 (6) of the Law on joint-stock companies (no. 1134-XIII of 2 April 1997), if during two consecutive years the company’s net assets are smaller than its social capital, any shareholder can ask for, inter alia, the company’s dissolution. Under section 39 (8) of the same law, the failure to observe the provisions of section 39 (6) is a ground for the company’s dissolution by a court at the request of any shareholder. Under section 93 (2 and 3) of the of the same law, the reorganisation of a joint-stock shall be decided, as the case may be, at the general shareholders’ meeting, the competent State authority or the courts. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 9.  The applicants complained of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as a result of their court action being unlawfully struck out. 10.  The Government submitted that the decision of 28 April 2009 did not concern the determination of the applicants’ civil rights and obligations, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The first-instance court did not examine the substance of the case and thus did not resolve any dispute between the parties. Accordingly, Article 6 was not applicable in the present case. 11.  The Court notes that there was clearly a dispute between the applicants and M. that was serious and concerned the manner of exercising their property right, which is civil in nature. It finds that the overall result of the courts’ decisions was the striking of the court action from the list of cases. In this regard, the Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal (see, among many other authorities, Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18, and Fabbri and Others v. San Marino [GC], nos. 6319/21 and 2 others, § 124, 24 September 2024). In the present case, by virtue of the higher court’s decision, the courts did not have an opportunity to examine the merits of the case. It is true that where, in accordance with the law, a competent court refuses to examine a court action because of admissibility hurdles which are not disproportionate, in normal circumstances no issue of access to court arises. In the present case, the competent court accepted the case for examination and did not find any admissibility issues (see paragraphs 3 and 4 above). Accordingly, the applicants had the right to obtain a court solution on the merits. Article 6 is therefore applicable, and the Government’s objection must be dismissed. 12.  The Government also argued that the applicants, in any event, were no longer victims of the alleged violation of their right of access to a court since their court action was eventually accepted for examination in 2018. 13.  The Court reiterates that it falls first to the national authorities to redress any violation of the Convention and that in assessing whether an applicant can claim to be a genuine victim of an alleged violation, account should be taken not only of the formal position at the time when the application was lodged with the Court but of all the circumstances of the case in question, including any developments prior to the date of the examination of the case by the Court (see Tănase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 105, ECHR 2010). At the same time, a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, § 129, 31 January 2019). 14.  In the present case none of the courts acknowledged a breach of the applicants’ right of access to court either expressly or implicitly, nor offered any redress. The fact that a new court action is under examination does not amount to such a remedy and is entirely the result of the applicants’ actions and not that of the authorities. Accordingly, this objection must also be dismissed. 15.  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. 16.  The general principles concerning access to a court have been summarized in Zubac v. Croatia [GC] (no. 40160/12, §§ 76 et seq., 5 April 2018). In particular, in connection with the case of Golder, cited above, the Court reiterated that the right of access to a court was an inherent aspect of the safeguards enshrined in Article 6, referring to the principles of the rule of law and the avoidance of arbitrary power which underlay much of the Convention. While the right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations, these must not restrict the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (Zubac, cited above, § 78). 17.  In the present case it is noted that the first-instance court was the sole authority with the power to decide on the admissibility of a court action, by accepting a court action for examination, directing the plaintiff to amend the action or requesting additional documents (see paragraph 7 above). As confirmed also by the Economic Court of Appeal when annulling the decision of the lower court concerning measures to secure evidence, such a decision was amenable to appeal only together with an appeal against any judgment adopted by the first-instance court on the merits of the case (see paragraph 5 above). It is also noted that the decision of the first-instance court to accept a case for examination could not be appealed at all under Article 168 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 7 above). 18.  Notwithstanding the above express legal prohibition, the Court of Appeal examined an appeal against the decision of 28 April 2009, in the absence of a judgment on the merits of the case. While it relied on Article 13 of the Convention, the Economic Court of Appeal failed to mention that M. did have an effective remedy in the form of an appeal against any decision of the first-instance court on the merits of the case. The interpretation of domestic law and the Convention in the decision of 29 June 2009 thus lacked coherent reasoning and was untenable. 19.  The Court finds that the Economic Court of Appeal’s decision of 29 June 2009 was contrary to domestic law, lacked coherent reasoning and was thus incompatible with the principle of the rule of law, inherent in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In adopting that decision, the Court of Appeal not only set aside the lower court’s judgment, but also struck the case out of the list of cases, thus restricting the applicants’ access to court to such an extent that the very essence of the right was impaired. 20.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 21.  The applicants asked the Court to reserve the issue of just satisfaction, as the value of their share in the company could not yet be determined. 22.  The Government submitted that in the absence of a violation no compensation was due. 23.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. However, it awards the applicants jointly 3,600 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. 24.  The applicants claimed 2,500 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses. They submitted a contract with their lawyer and evidence of full payment of the above sum. 25.  The Government argued that the claim was unsubstantiated and excessive. 26.  Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 1,500 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)  EUR 3,600 (three thousand six hundred 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 applicants, 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 applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 January 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Martina Keller Georgios A. Serghides  Deputy Registrar President     APPENDIX List of applicants: Application no. 10435/10 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Nicolae RĂZEŞU Moldovan Chisinau 2. Pavel BECCIV Moldovan Chisinau 3. Viorel CHETRUŞCĂ Moldovan Chisinau 4. Mihail GHERŞTOGA Moldovan Chisinau 5. Ion JURA Moldovan Colonita 6. Irina MOCAN Moldovan Chisinau 7. Iurie PILIPENCO Moldovan Chisinau 8. Irina RĂZEŞU Moldovan Chisinau 9. Ala SIMINENCO Moldovan Chisinau 10. Ion SIMINENCO Moldovan Chisinau 11. Margareta STRUGAC Moldovan Chisinau 12. Veaceslav ŞUVALOV Moldovan Chisinau 13. Valeriu TENŢIU Moldovan Chisinau 14. Anatolie ŢIGANENCO Moldovan Chisinau