Ionescu v. the Republic of Moldova

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 63024/16 Vilorie IONESCU against the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8 October 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. 63024/16) 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 25 October 2016 by a Moldovan national, Mr Vilorie Ionescu (“the applicant”), who was born in 1979 and lives in Chișinău, and was represented by Mr M. Balaban, 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 observations submitted by the Government;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1 In 2014 a commercial bank instituted civil proceedings against the applicant and his father I.P., seeking the repayment of outstanding debt related to the liquidation of the collateral, I.P.’s flat.

2 The Chișinău District Court scheduled a hearing for 22 December 2014. On 30 October 2014 the court sent the applicant and I.P. a summons with acknowledgment of receipt to their common registered address.

3 . On 22 December 2014 the court examined the case in the applicant’s absence but in the presence of I.P. The court found no reasons to adjourn the hearing, considering that the applicant had been duly informed of the time and day of the hearing but had failed to appear, without providing proper reasons for his absence. The court took note that the notice of acknowledgment of receipt had been returned, signed by I.P, and of I.P.’s consent to proceed with the examination of the case.

4 On the same day the court granted the bank’s claim, concluding that the applicant and I.P. had failed to fulfil their contractual obligations and ordered them jointly to repay the outstanding debt.

5 . In appeal proceedings initiated by I.P., the summons sent by the appellate court addressed to the applicant was returned as unclaimed with a note from the post office stating that the applicant “[had] left Moldova”. The summons in respect of I.P. was sent to the same address and he attended all court hearings.

6 . On 20 October 2015 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed I.P.’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. The appellate court also rejected I.P.’s argument regarding the lack of proper summons by the first-instance court in respect of the applicant, finding that the applicant had been duly informed of the hearing.

7 . The applicant submitted that he had found out about the civil proceedings initiated against him in the course of enforcement proceedings and, on 15 February 2016, had requested access to the case file. He lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing, among other things, that the case had been examined in his absence since the summons had never reached him, as he had not been living in Moldova at that time. He also argued that the address to which all the summonses had been sent was incorrect, since he no longer lived in that apartment, which had been sold in 2013 in order to repay the debt owed to the bank.

8 . The applicant presented the court with evidence showing that in 2014 he had been abroad and had returned on 23 June 2015.

9 By a final judgment of 27 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected applicant’s appeal on points of law, holding that it did not contain any proper grounds for appeal.

10 The applicant complained before the Court that his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been breached because he had not been informed of the proceedings concerning the civil case against him.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

11 The applicant complained that his right of access to a court and his rights to adversarial proceedings and to equality of arms had been breached and that he had not been duly informed of the proceedings before the first‑instance and appellate courts. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

12 The Government submitted that the applicant had been duly informed of the time and day of the hearings, both before the first-instance court and the appellate court, as shown by the signed acknowledgment of receipt that had been returned to the courts. The applicant and his father I.P. had had their registered residence at the address to which the court had sent the summons. Given the family relationship between the applicant and I.P., the applicant had been lawfully summoned in accordance with Article 105 § 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allowed the service of summonses on adult family members living with the addressee who agreed to inform the person concerned.

13 The Government contested the alleged change of address following the sale of the apartment, arguing that neither the applicant nor I.P. had informed the court of any such change. They further submitted that the applicant had himself indicated the same address in his request to the court for access to the case file (see paragraph 7 above).

14 Lastly, the Government submitted that during the first-instance court proceedings, I.P. had agreed that the court should continue the examination of the case in the applicant’s absence.

15 The applicant submitted his relevant observations outside the time‑limit and they were thus not included in the case file for the consideration of the Court (Rule 38 § 1 of the Rules of Court).

16 The general principles concerning the serving of summonses on parties to the proceedings have been summarised in Bacaksız v. Turkey (no. 24245/09, §§ 52-57, 10 December 2019).

17 Neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving, of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial. However, such a waiver must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by the minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance (see Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 73, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII).

18 Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the applicant was the principal debtor for the bank loan, while his father, I.P., acted as guarantor. The Court cannot disregard that the bank’s civil action concerned both the applicant and his father. It stemmed from a loan which was not fully repaid after the collateral had been sold. The court action had been preceded by the bank’s extra-judicial notices requesting repayment of the outstanding amount.

19 The Court notes that the applicant was summoned at his registered address for the hearings before both the first-instance and appellate courts. According to the material in the case file, in the proceedings before the first‑instance court, the summons addressed to the applicant was received by I.P., who signed the receipt and undertook the obligation to inform the applicant of the upcoming hearings, in accordance with the procedure under Article 105 § 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 3 above). There was no reason for the first-instance court to consider the summoning procedure invalid. In the appellate proceedings, I.P. himself was successfully summoned at the same address but complained of a deficiency in the applicant’s summoning; the summons sent to the applicant at the same address was returned to the court unclaimed, owing to the applicant’s alleged absence from Moldova (see paragraphs 5 and 6 above).

20 At the same time, although the applicant had arguably not been living at that address, in 2016, that is, two years after the civil proceedings against him had begun, the applicant himself indicated the same contact address in his request to the first-instance court for access to the case file (see paragraph 7 above). Furthermore, the applicant had returned to Moldova before the hearing in the appellate court took place (see paragraphs 6 and 8 above).

21 In these circumstances, the Court finds that the Moldovan authorities were diligent in informing the applicant of the proceedings at the only available contact address, and that the applicant was duly informed of the proceedings before the first-instance court and waived his right to appear in person and to defend himself. Furthermore, the Court notes that the case before the domestic courts was brought against the applicant and his father in respect of the same debt and property, that no conflict between their interests could be discerned and that the applicant’s father was provided with an adversarial hearing. For these reasons, the consequences attributed to the applicant’s behaviour by the domestic courts – the examination of the case in his absence but in his father’s presence – was commensurate to the gravity of their failings and have not affected the overarching principle of a fair hearing.

22 It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 29 October 2026.

Martina Keller María Elósegui Deputy Registrar President