FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF DAMIAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 32935/13)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
5 February 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Damian 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 regard to:
the application (no. 32935/13) 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 20 April 2013 by a Moldovan national, Ms Livia Damian (“the applicant”), who was born in 1977, lives in Chișinău and was represented by Ms G. Gutium, lawyer practising in Chișinău;
the decision to give notice to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr D. Obadă, of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 15 January 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the proportionality of the domestic court’s decisions to annul a contract under which the applicant had become the owner of a building. 2. On 28 November 2002 the Chișinău local authorities allowed a private company (company L.) to erect a building. On an unspecified date company M., another private company, lodged court proceedings against the local authorities claiming that company L.’s building blocked access to its premises. It asked to obtain the property over similar real estate in Chișinău. 3. On 5 July 2005 the Economic District Court accepted company M.’s request and ordered the local authorities to transfer the property to company M. concerning a specific building in Chișinău (“the building”), which was non-residential. In the absence of an appeal, that judgment became final. 4. A political party was renting the building from the local authorities since 2002. On an unknown date the local authorities transferred ownership of the building to company M., which registered it in the real estate register. 5. On 10 May 2006 company M. sold the building to E.P., who had the purchase contract confirmed by a notary public and had her property right registered in the real estate register of the Cadastre Office. On 25 November 2006 E.P. sold the building to the applicant, who paid 321,000 Moldovan lei ((MDL), approximately 18,800 euros (EUR) at the time). On the same day the contract was authenticated by a notary public. At the time of the sale no limitation or condition on E.P.’s property right over the relevant building was noted in the real estate register. 6. The applicant registered her property right with the Cadastre Office on 27 November 2006. On an unspecified date after buying the building, the applicant learned that the political party occupied it. She asked it on a number of occasions to vacate the building, to no avail. 7. On an unknown date, the political party asked the local authorities to sell the building to them as part of the process of privatisation. On 21 December 2006 the Republican Commission of the Privatisation Agency decided to allow the privatisation of the building by the political party, which subsequently paid its price to the State (MDL 500,000 equivalent of EUR 29,000 at the time). 8. On 5 March 2007 the applicant lodged a court action against the political party, asking for a court order to vacate the building and for the annulment of the decision of 21 December 2006. The political party lodged a counteraction, seeking the annulment of the contracts between company M. and E.P. as well as between E.P. and the applicant. During the examination of the case, the political party asked for the reopening of the proceedings between company M. and the local authorities (see paragraph 33 above). On 26 August 2008 the Economic Court of Appeal accepted the request and annulled the final judgment of 5 July 2005, because a third party affected by the judgment (the political party) had not been involved in the proceedings. The political party participated in the proceedings, but the applicant was apparently unaware of them. 9. On 2 June 2007 E.P. died. In the main proceedings between the applicant and the political party, after several decisions sending the case for a retrial, on 19 April 2011 the first-instance court rejected the applicant’s action and accepted the one lodged by the political party. It found that the judgment of 5 July 2005 in company M.’s favour had been annulled on 26 August 2008. Accordingly, since the basis for company M.’s property right had disappeared, it could not sell the building to E.P., the contract being null and void. It also found that the contract between E.P. and the applicant had to be annulled as fictitiously concluded, because the applicant had not taken possession of the contract’s object. 10. On 13 March 2012 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. It essentially repeated the lower court’s reasons concerning the nullity of the contract between company M. and E.P. and between E.P. and the applicant, as fictitious. It noted that the applicant had not taken possession of the building. The court also noted that although the political party privatised the building on 21 December 2006, it had obtained the approval of the Republican Commission of the Privatisation Agency in 2003, for the price of MDL 204,000 (approximately EUR 12,800). As a renter of the building, the political party had priority in privatising it. 11. In a final judgment of 8 November 2012, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the lower courts’ judgments.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: violation