Arehta v. the Republic of Moldova

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 11695/17 Tatiana AREHTA against the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 June 2026 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. 11695/17) 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 21 January 2017 by a Moldovan national, Ms Tatiana Arehta (“the applicant”), who was born in 1989 and lives in Goleni, and was represented by Mr R. Crivenco, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, Mr D. Obadă;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1 The case concerns the appellate court’s refusal, in the context of civil proceedings concerning the applicant’s maternity allowance, to examine the applicant’s appeal on the merits because it had been lodged outside the statutory time-limit. The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

2 . The Colicăuți Local Council refused to establish and award the applicant a maternity allowance. On 8 July 2015 she lodged an administrative claim with a court, seeking a maternity allowance.

3 On 21 March 2016 the Edineț District Court dismissed her claim, holding mainly that she had not met the minimum contribution period required for entitlement to maternity allowance.

4 . The applicant lodged an unreasoned appeal against the first-instance court’s judgment. On 29 April 2016 the Bălți Court of Appeal left her appeal without examination and ordered the applicant to submit the reasons for her appeal by 4 p.m. on 17 May 2016, indicating that failure to comply within the prescribed time-limit would result in her appeal being struck out.

5 On 17 May 2016 the appellate court concluded that the applicant had not submitted reasons for her appeal within the set time-limit and ordered the return of her appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against that decision, arguing that the required document had been submitted within the set time-limit, but to no avail.

6 . On 25 May 2016 the appellate court decided to restore the applicant’s appeal to its list of cases.

7 . The Court was subsequently informed that on 21 February 2017 the Bălți Court of Appeal had granted the applicant’s request for the case to be reinstated within the time-limit for appeal and that on 13 March 2017 it had examined her appeal on the merits and decided to uphold the first-instance court’s judgment of 21 March 2016.

8 . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the appellate decision. On 12 July 2017 the Supreme Court of Justice declared her appeal on points of law inadmissible.

9 The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she had been deprived of the right of access to a court of appeal, as the domestic court had followed an overly formalistic approach when it had rejected her appeal on 17 May 2016. With reference to the acceptance of the appeal to the appellate court’s list of cases on 25 May 2016, she argued that the existence of two contradictory rulings concerning her appeal had rendered her position vulnerable and had made the outcome of her claim unpredictable. She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the rejection of her claims in respect of maternity allowance.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

10 The Government, referring to the outcome of the court proceedings after the applicant had lodged her application with the Court (see paragraphs 7-8 above), submitted that either the applicant had lost her victim status or that the matter had been resolved.

11 The applicant did not make any submissions concerning her victim status but maintained her application before the Court.

12 The Court observes that the developments in the applicant’s case resulted in the applicant’s appeal being examined on the merits by the appellate court and, subsequently, in the appellate court’s decision being reviewed by the Supreme Court of Justice (see paragraphs 7-8 above).

13 Although the applicant did not obtain a favourable judgment on her claims, her right to lodge an appeal and to obtain a review of the judgment of 21 March 2016 was ultimately secured and the circumstances complained of by the applicant and the effects of a possible violation of the Convention have been redressed. The Court therefore finds that both conditions for the application of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention are met (see El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, §§ 30-34, 20 December 2007). The matter giving rise to the applicant’s complaint may therefore now be considered “resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b). Moreover, no particular reason relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention requires the Court to continue its examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine .

14 The Court also reiterates that it is not required, for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, that the national authorities acknowledge a violation of the Convention or that the applicant, in addition to having obtained a resolution of the matter, is also granted compensation (see H.P. v. Denmark (dec.), no. 55607/09, § 78, 13 December 2016).

15 In respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

16 It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 July 2026.

Martina Keller María Elósegui Deputy Registrar President