35303/15

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF INTERACTIV S.A. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 35303/15)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 26 March 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Interactiv S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  María Elósegui, President,  Andreas Zünd,  Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges, and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 35303/15) 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 7 July 2015 by Interactiv S.A. (“the applicant company”), incorporated in the Republic of Moldova in 1995, which was represented by Mr A. Postică, a lawyer practising in Chișinău; the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their former Agent, Mr D. Obadă; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.  The application concerns an alleged breach of the applicant company’s rights to a fair trial and to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions on account of the allegedly insufficient and arbitrary reasoning of a decision delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice in reversing lower courts’ judgments, in the absence of an oral hearing, thus depriving the applicant company of the possibility of presenting its case or to comment on new evidence presented by the opposing parties. The applicant company relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 2.  On 21 December 2005 the applicant company and the Capital Construction Department within the Chișinău Municipal Council (hereinafter “the CMC”) signed an agreement for shared funding of the construction of a gas pipeline with specific parameters. The CMC undertook the obligation to reimburse 50% of the expenses incurred by the applicant company for the construction of the gas pipeline by the end of 2006. In return the CMC would have become a co-owner of the pipeline and would have been able to use it for connecting other households to gas supply. After finalising the construction of the pipeline in question, the applicant company, on the basis of documents provided in that respect, requested that the CMC pay 694,560 Moldovan lei (MDL – equivalent to 41,920 euros (EUR) at the relevant time). Although it acknowledged the debt in 2007 and requested further documents in 2008, the CMC did not fulfil its financial obligation. 3.  On 22 July 2011 the applicant company sued the CMC and the Chișinău City Hall (hereinafter “the CCH”) to recover the debt and court fees. It relied on the 2005 agreement and the debtor’s failure to reimburse 50% of the applicant company’s investment in the construction of the gas pipeline. 4.  By a judgment of 12 December 2013, the Buiucani District Court of Chișinău partly granted the claim, ordering the joint payment by the defendants of MDL 694,560 (equivalent to EUR 38,740 at the relevant time) in debt and MDL 20,836 (equivalent to EUR 1,160 at the relevant time) in court fees to the applicant company. The court found that the 2005 agreement was valid and remained unenforced by the Chișinău local authorities. It confirmed the total construction cost and the CCH’s obligation under the signed agreement, noting that the latter had acknowledged the debt in its correspondence but had ultimately failed to pay. 5.  The CCH and the CMC challenged the first-instance court’s judgment, arguing that it was unfounded and based on a misapplication of substantive and procedural law. They argued in their appeal that the 2005 agreement was null and unenforceable, asserting that it involved an obligation which was impossible to fulfil on account of the absence of a municipal council decision approving the cost of the pipeline. They also claimed that the pipeline had never been recorded in the Capital Construction Department’s balance sheet or accounting records. Additionally, they argued that the agreement had violated laws on local public administration and public procurement and stated that it could not be found in their archives or financial records. 6.  By a decision of 25 June 2014, the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s judgment of 12 December 2013. It confirmed the validity of the 2005 agreement and the solidary obligation of the CCH, the CMC and its Capital Construction Department to pay 50% of the cost of the gas pipeline in question. In dismissing the local authorities’ reasons, the appellate court found that the pipeline had already been built and operational at the time of signing the agreement, rendering public procurement rules inapplicable. Moreover, the authorities had not challenged the validity of the agreement via counterclaims or expert evidence. 7.  On 25 September 2014 the CCH and the CMC lodged an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court of Justice, relying on the same reasons invoked before the appellate court. They additionally relied on an inspection of the gas pipeline carried out not long before they had lodged their appeal on points of law and measurements differing from those allegedly contained in the applicant company’s documents. The applicant company asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal on points of law, disagreeing with the reasons advanced in the appeal. 8.  By a final decision of 21 January 2015, the Supreme Court of Justice – without holding an oral hearing and in the absence of the parties – admitted the local authorities’ appeal on points of law, set aside the lower courts’ decisions and re-examined the case. It acknowledged the existence of a 110‑mm gas pipeline built by the applicant company, mentioning, however, that the company had referred to a 140-mm pipeline. It examined new evidence and concluded that the cost estimate submitted by the applicant company had been unrelated to the 2005 agreement. The Supreme Court of Justice therefore dismissed the applicant company’s claim as unfounded. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT         ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 9.  The applicant company complained that the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice had not been fair. In particular, it alleged that the Supreme Court had examined the case as a court of first instance without conducting an oral hearing and had relied on new evidence without giving the applicant company an opportunity to comment. The Government contested that argument. 10.  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. 11.  The general principles concerning the right to a fair trial in relation to the examination of appeals on points of law have been summarised in Covalenco v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 72164/14, §§ 19-24, 16 June 2020, with further references). 12.  The Court has consistently held that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not impose an absolute obligation on a supreme or cassation court to hold an oral hearing in every case. The requirements of a “fair and public hearing” must be assessed in light of the nature of the proceedings and the competence of the judicial body concerned. Where the supreme court’s jurisdiction is confined to issues of law, and it does not undertake a fresh assessment of the facts or evidence, the absence of an oral hearing may be justified and does not in itself constitute a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court observes that in the present case the Supreme Court of Justice did not limit itself to reviewing points of law. It re‑examined the facts of the case, including the size of the pipeline and the relevance of the cost estimate relied upon by the applicant company. It also relied on the results of an inspection and measurements presented by the opposing parties for the first time in the proceedings on points of law. In so doing, it acted as a court of first instance, relying on contested factual issues. In such circumstances, a hearing was necessary to allow the applicant company to present its arguments effectively. 13.  The Court further notes that the applicant company was not afforded an opportunity to comment on or rebut the new material, which proved decisive in the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the applicant company’s claim was unfounded. This placed the applicant company at a clear disadvantage in relation to the opposing parties and contravened the principle of equality of arms. 14.  Lastly, the Court observes that the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Justice was confined to the alleged discrepancy in the diameter of the pipeline and to its interpretation of the cost estimate. It did not engage with the applicant company’s arguments or explain why it departed from the findings of the two lower courts, which had confirmed the validity of the agreement and the debt acknowledged by the local authorities. The Court considers that such reasoning fell short of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 15.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.        ALLEGED VIOLATION of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 16.  The applicant company also complained that the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice amounted to a breach of its right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and the merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 17.  The applicant company claimed 1,412,154 Moldovan lei (MDL – equivalent to 73,400 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage, which included the outstanding amount it sought to collect from the local authorities and the corresponding interest for default of payment. It also claimed EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court. The applicant company submitted the contract for legal representation before the Court, to confirm the incurred costs and expenses. 18.  The Government submitted that the claims were excessive and, in any event, unsubstantiated. 19.  The Court cannot speculate as to whether the applicant company would have collected its alleged debt had the breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention not taken place; it therefore rejects that claim. However, it awards the applicant company EUR 3,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 20.  Furthermore, having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 1,000 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, Declares the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention; Holds  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:  EUR 3,600 (three thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;   EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company, in respect of costs and expenses;   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 26 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Martina Keller María Elósegui  Deputy Registrar President