FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF ADAM v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 40846/15)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
5 March 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Adam 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. 40846/15) 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 6 August 2015 by a Moldovan national, Mr Ion Adam (“the applicant”), who was born in 1979 and lives in Călărași, and was initially represented by Mr A. Briceac, lawyer practising in Chișinău at the time;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr D. Obadă;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 5 February 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the alleged lack of effectiveness of the investigation into acts of violence committed by a private individual against the applicant and the allegedly inadequate the compensation awarded by the domestic courts. The applicant complained of a violation of his rights under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. 2. At the time of the events in question the applicant was a police officer. On 10 September 2013, in the exercise of his duties, the applicant ordered V.B., who was riding a motorcycle, to stop. Instead of complying, V.B. drove the motorcycle into the applicant. 3. As a result, the applicant sustained severe open head trauma, combined basilar skull and cranial vault fractures, and severe concussion. He lost the hearing in one ear and lost his sense of smell completely. He was discharged from hospital after 19 days. The medical report classified the injuries as severe and life‑threatening. 4. A criminal investigation into charges of using threats or violence against an official (Article 349 § 2 of the Criminal Code) was initiated in respect of V.B. on 19 September 2013. A month later, the case was sent for trial. 5. In the course of the judicial proceedings, the applicant lodged a civil claim against V.B., seeking compensation in the amount of 150,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) in respect of pecuniary damage and MDL 500,000 (approximately 28,000 euros (EUR)) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. The applicant submitted that, on 29 October 2013, he had received MDL 35,000 from V.B. and that that amount had been insufficient to compensate him for his loss of capacity to work and the cost of ongoing medical treatment. 6. On 17 July 2014 the Călărași District Court found V.B. guilty and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment, suspended on probation for a period of four years. The court ordered V.B. to pay the applicant MDL 6,000 in costs and expenses and dismissed the rest of the applicant’s civil claim as unsubstantiated. The court noted that the applicant had already received MDL 35,000 in compensation for damage sustained and that the applicant’s claims had been excessive in the light of the level of earning potential in the Republic of Moldova. 7. The applicant and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment, both arguing that the sentence had been too lenient. The applicant also complained of the inadequate level of compensation awarded for his permanent loss of hearing in one ear, complete loss of smell, constant headaches and implicit loss of capacity to work. 8. On 27 November 2015 the Chișinău Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, upheld the sentence imposed by the District Court and awarded the applicant MDL 60,000 (approximately EUR 2,971 at the material time) in compensation in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and MDL 3,000 in respect of costs and expenses. The court noted that V.B. had already paid the applicant MDL 35,000 (see paragraph 5 above) and ordered him to pay the remaining difference. The court ruled that the applicant had failed to substantiate his claims in respect of pecuniary damage and informed the applicant that he should lodge his claims in that connection with the civil courts and substantiate them accordingly, once the amount of damage caused by the incident had been determined. 9. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing mainly that the amount of compensation awarded had been insufficient. 10. On 20 May 2015 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the appellate judgment. That decision was final.

Outcome for Article 2: violation