Background
Grafescolo S.R.L., a Moldovan company, purchased a plot of land with greenhouses on the banks of the Nistru River from the Vadul lui Vodă City Hall in March 2003 pursuant to a city council decision. In June 2006, the city council revoked its authorising decision on the basis that the full purchase price had not been paid. After the company challenged the revocation, the case worked its way through the Moldovan court system, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court of Justice. The Supreme Court had already been subject to scrutiny by the European Court in an earlier judgment (Grafescolo S.R.L. v. Moldova, no. 36157/08, 22 July 2014), which found a violation of Article 6 § 1 because domestic courts had failed to address the company’s statute-of-limitations defence. Following that judgment, the Supreme Court reopened the case for fresh examination.
During the fresh proceedings, the applicant company raised an admissibility objection to the city council’s appeal on points of law, arguing that it had been signed by the mayor of Vadul lui Vodă without proper legal authorisation. Under the Law on public local administration then in force, the council was required to appoint a legal representative or formally authorise the mayor to act on its behalf. The company contended the appeal should therefore be rejected as lodged by an unauthorised person.
By its decision of 20 May 2015, the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the council’s appeal and quashed the Court of Appeal’s ruling in favour of the company. It acknowledged that the city hall and city council were distinct legal entities but gave no analysis of whether the mayor was authorised to represent the council. It also relied—without any notice to the parties—on the assumption that the city hall lacked procedural standing, an argument no party had raised or had the opportunity to address. Subsequent decisions by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court itself similarly failed to engage with the representation question.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court held that by failing to address the applicant company’s clearly formulated procedural objection regarding the mayor’s authority to sign the appeal on behalf of the city council, the Supreme Court of Justice deprived the company of an essential safeguard inherent in the principle of equality of arms. The omission placed the company at a substantial disadvantage relative to the opposing party, whose standing to lodge the appeal had been legitimately called into question.
The Court further held that the Supreme Court compounded the unfairness by introducing, on its own motion and without notice, the assumption that the city hall lacked procedural standing—a ground not raised by either party and not debated at the hearing. Relying on a novel argument without affording the applicant company any opportunity to comment was incompatible with the requirements of adversarial proceedings. Viewed as a whole, the domestic proceedings breached both equality of arms and the right to adversarial hearing under Article 6 § 1.
On just satisfaction under Article 41, the Court rejected the claim for restitution of the land, finding it could not speculate as to what outcome might have followed absent the procedural violation. It awarded EUR 3,600 in non-pecuniary damages. It made no award for costs and expenses because the applicant company failed to submit a legal representation agreement, an itemised and signed timesheet, or receipts for court fees as required by Rule 60 § 2 of the Rules of Court.
Key Takeaways
- A domestic court that receives a clearly formulated admissibility objection decisive to the outcome must address it with specific reasons; silence on the point violates the principle of equality of arms under Article 6 § 1.
- Courts may not introduce new legal grounds or assumptions on their own initiative without first notifying the parties and giving them an opportunity to respond; doing so breaches the principle of adversarial proceedings.
- A prior ECtHR judgment finding a fair-trial violation and ordering reopening does not cure the violation if the fresh domestic proceedings repeat the same procedural defects.
- Claims for costs and expenses will be dismissed where the applicant fails to produce supporting documentation (representation agreement, signed itemised timesheet, fee receipts) as required by Rule 60 § 2 of the Rules of Court.
Why It Matters
This judgment reinforces that the obligations flowing from Article 6 § 1 apply with equal force to reopened proceedings ordered after a prior Strasbourg ruling. States cannot satisfy their duty to provide a fair hearing simply by reopening a case; the reconstituted proceedings must themselves comply with Convention standards, including the duty to engage with decisive procedural objections and to avoid surprise grounds.
For practitioners, the case is a clear reminder of the Court’s consistent line—drawn from Regner v. Czech Republic and Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal—that parties are entitled to a specific and express reply to submissions capable of determining the outcome, and that any argument on which a court intends to rely must be put to the parties before judgment. Courts acting on unventilated grounds, however well-intentioned, risk a finding that they have undermined the very fairness the adversarial system is designed to guarantee.