Background
Valentina Gaiciuc guaranteed a company loan from a bank. After the bank sued for repayment, she counterclaimed, alleging that she had not agreed to the guarantee and that her signature had been forged. She also sought recovery of money removed from her deposit account, interest, non-pecuniary damages, and costs.
The Ocnița District Court ordered the bank to refund the withdrawn deposit but dismissed the claims for interest and non-pecuniary damages; the Bălți Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. Gaiciuc then filed an appeal on points of law and paid MDL 1,118, half the fee she had paid for her counterclaim. The Supreme Court of Justice required her to pay a total of MDL 5,493, without explaining the calculation, and ultimately declined to examine the appeal because she did not pay the balance.
The Court’s Holding
Unanimously, the Court held that Moldova violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It found that the Supreme Court of Justice had refused to examine the merits of Gaiciuc’s appeal because of unpaid fees calculated contrary to domestic law.
That unexplained and unlawful fee requirement was unforeseeable and impaired the very essence of her right of access to a court. Gaiciuc could not be faulted for failing to pay either the statutory fee or the higher amount later imposed. The Court rejected the Government’s objections that she had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, abused the right of petition, or lost victim status after recovering her deposit.
Key Takeaways
- A court-fee requirement that contradicts domestic law may unlawfully restrict access to a higher court.
- Partial enforcement of a favorable domestic judgment does not eliminate victim status where other claims remain dismissed without appellate merits review.
- The Court awarded EUR 3,600 for non-pecuniary damage, rejected pecuniary damage as speculative, and made no costs award for lack of supporting documents.
Why It Matters
The judgment underscores that procedural fees must be lawful, predictable, and transparently calculated. A litigant’s appeal cannot be blocked through a fee demand that exceeds what domestic law permits.
For appellate courts, the decision reinforces that access-to-court guarantees apply to the practical administration of filing fees, including appeals on points of law.