ECHR declares inadmissible Elit-Fitness club’s application concerning the gym rented in Chișinău

The Court did not consider a protected pecuniary interest to have been demonstrated in the circumstances of the case. The decision explains why the subsequent restoration of the landlord’s ownership did not change the tenant’s situation and separately examines the argument concerning clientele.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declared inadmissible the application by Elit-Fitness S.R.L. concerning the loss of use of a rented gym in Chișinău and the annulment of the contract. The decision in application no. 21829/13, lodged against the Republic of Moldova, was adopted on 24 September and communicated on 15 October 2026. The Committee of three judges unanimously considered that, in the circumstances of the case, the company had not demonstrated the existence of a pecuniary interest protected by the Convention.

In brief

The ECHR declared Elit-Fitness’s application inadmissible in a decision communicated on 15 October 2026.

The contract for a 211.1-square-metre gym had been concluded for ten years and declared void with retroactive effect in 2012.

The restoration of the landlord’s ownership in 2020, following separate proceedings before the ECHR, did not change the outcome for the tenant.

The Court also declared inadmissible the complaint concerning an effective remedy. The decision does not generally exclude protection for contracts or clientele.

The dispute arose from a contract signed on 15 September 2003 with a company identified in the decision as company C. Elit-Fitness was granted the right to use, for ten years beginning on 15 October 2003, a 211.1-square-metre gym in a sports complex in central Chișinău. At the time of signing, company C. was listed in the real estate register as the owner of the complex. The lease agreement was registered on 22 September 2003.

However, the university contested the company’s ownership of the complex. On 23 January 2008, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the annulment of the registration of company C.’s ownership. By another final decision, dated 7 May 2009, the university was recognised as the owner. These were distinct stages of the dispute concerning the property.

The university asked Elit-Fitness to vacate the gym by a letter dated 6 April 2009. According to the applicant company’s account, on 5 August the university’s representatives changed the locks, prevented it from accessing the premises, and moved the sports equipment to a storage facility. The university had already concluded a contract with another fitness club, company R., in December 2008; that company took over the gym on 11 September 2009.

Elit-Fitness brought a civil action on 20 October 2009, seeking the conclusion of a new contract and an end to the obstruction of its use of the gym. The company argued that the 2003 lease was still valid and registered, and that its eviction had caused it significant financial losses. It also relied on the rule in the Civil Code at the time under which, if the owner transferred the rented property, the new owner assumed the landlord’s rights and obligations.

The university, in turn, requested that the contract be declared void. The first-instance court ruled in its favour, the appeal was decided in favour of Elit-Fitness, and on 17 October 2012 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the first-instance decision. The supreme court considered that the annulment of the ownership registration had retroactive effect and that the lease had been concluded by a company that had to be treated in law as not having been the owner. On that interpretation, the contract was void, and the rule concerning the assumption of obligations by a new owner did not apply. The court found no basis for ordering the university to conclude a new contract.

Before the ECHR, Elit-Fitness complained of its eviction before the expiry of the contract, the takeover of its clientele by the other club, and the annulment of the lease. It relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which protects property, and Article 13 of the Convention, concerning the right to an effective remedy. The European Court first examined whether the company had demonstrated the existence of a possession or a protected pecuniary interest.

Protection of possessions in the ECHR’s case-law may include contractual rights and commercial interests, in addition to ownership of objects or immovable property. However, a legitimate expectation of benefiting from a pecuniary right must have a sufficient legal basis. In Elit-Fitness’s case, the Court noted that, according to the interpretation of the national courts, the contract was regarded as though it had never existed and had produced no legal effects. The material submitted did not demonstrate that the supreme court’s interpretation had been arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.

The case also had an important subsequent development. Company C. separately obtained a favourable judgment from the ECHR in the case of Consocivil, communicated on 3 December 2019. The Court found a violation of the right to a fair trial because the Moldovan courts had failed to respond to essential arguments, including those concerning the late filing of the action against the registration of ownership. The judgment concerned procedural guarantees and did not itself order the restitution of the property.

Following the reopening of the proceedings, on 4 November 2020 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed as time-barred the university’s action against the registration of company C.’s ownership. In the Elit-Fitness decision, the ECHR took note of the restoration of the ownership right in 2020. It nevertheless considered that this development occurred after the facts under examination and that the tenant company had not demonstrated that, at the relevant time, there was a sufficient legal basis for the claimed right to use the gym.

The Court also examined the argument concerning clientele. Although clientele built up through professional activity may constitute a protected possession, the case file did not demonstrate that, in this case, the clients depended on the 2003 contract or on the precise location of the gym. Nothing indicated that Elit-Fitness had been prevented from continuing its activity in another premises. Nor had the company argued that the move had caused a significant loss of clients or prevented it from attracting others. These findings concern the arguments and evidence submitted in the case file and do not generally exclude protection for commercial clientele.

Accordingly, the complaint concerning possessions was declared inadmissible because, in the circumstances demonstrated, the interests relied upon did not fall within the scope of protection under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court also declared inadmissible the complaint concerning the lack of an effective remedy. In this case, the company had not raised an arguable complaint concerning a violation of a right protected by the Convention, and Article 13 was therefore inapplicable.

The decision concludes the Elit-Fitness application without a judgment on the merits concerning a violation of the right to property and without any compensation being awarded by that decision. It does not establish that every annulled lease is automatically deprived of protection. The Court’s reasoning remains tied to the legal basis and evidence presented in this case.

https://2eu.brussels/ro/news/cedo-respinge-plangerea-unui-club-de-fitness-din-chisinau-dupa-anularea-retroactiva-a-contractului-de-inchiriere