ECHR rejects Judge Dorin Munteanu’s application because he concealed the compensation proceedings in Moldova

The Strasbourg Court found that Dorin Munteanu deliberately failed to communicate the proceedings in which the Moldovan courts had recognized violations of certain rights and had definitively awarded him MDL 150,000 in non-pecuniary damages, plus MDL 30,000 for costs. The inadmissibility decision is final and does not determine on the merits the complaints concerning the criminal prosecution and the judge’s suspension.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declared the application lodged by Moldovan judge Dorin Munteanu inadmissible after finding that he had deliberately failed to communicate domestic proceedings in which he had obtained recognition of violations of certain rights and compensation. The decision was adopted on 1 October 2026 and notified in writing on 22 October. The Court rejected the application for abuse of the right of application, without examining on the merits the complaints concerning authorization of the criminal prosecution and the judge’s suspension.

1. The ECHR rejected Dorin Munteanu’s application because he intentionally failed to communicate the domestic compensation proceedings, which were relevant to his victim status.

2. The non-pecuniary compensation was definitively reduced from MDL 250,000 to MDL 150,000; the MDL 30,000 for costs was maintained. The total awarded by the Moldovan courts was MDL 180,000, not an amount awarded by the ECHR.

3. The judge had been acquitted, reinstated, and fully paid for the period of his suspension. He had announced his acquittal but had not spontaneously communicated the civil proceedings and the favorable decisions. He submitted the final domestic decision only after the ECHR requested explanations.

4. The ECHR decision was adopted on 1 October 2026 and notified on 22 October. It is a unanimous and final decision of a committee of three judges.

5. The Court did not examine on the merits the complaints concerning the SCM procedure and the suspension. The rejection does not annul the domestic compensation and does not establish that the Moldovan authorities complied with the Convention.

The case stems from a decision of 9 December 2016, when Munteanu, then an investigating judge, rejected the extension of the pretrial detention of a person under criminal investigation. After hearing a defense witness, he considered that there were no longer plausible grounds for suspecting that the offense had been committed. The Prosecutor General subsequently asked the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) to authorize the criminal prosecution of the judge, arguing that he had knowingly issued an unlawful decision.

The SCM examined the request in a closed session, which Munteanu attended only partially: after presenting his position, he was asked to leave the room so that the Prosecutor General could present confidential information. On 31 January 2017, the Council authorized the criminal prosecution and suspended him pending the final resolution of the case. The SCM stated that the law did not allow it to assess the reliability of the elements presented by the prosecutor.

The judge challenged the procedure, invoking the non-public nature of the hearing, his limited participation, the lack of adversarial proceedings, and the insufficient reasoning of the decision. On 4 December 2017, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the appeal as inadmissible, considering that it could review compliance with the procedure for adopting the SCM act. Munteanu applied to the ECHR on 22 May 2018, relying on Articles 6, 8, and 13 of the Convention: the guarantees of a fair trial, the protection of private and professional life, and the existence of sufficient judicial review.

On 11 November 2019, the magistrate was acquitted after the prosecutor withdrew the charges. In a letter received in Strasbourg on 3 January 2020, he informed the Court that the acquittal had become final. This communication later mattered in assessing his conduct, because the ECHR had reminded him as early as 15 May 2019 of his obligation to report important developments in the case.

On 20 May 2020, Munteanu also brought civil proceedings against the State for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. In those proceedings, he also challenged the authorization of the criminal prosecution and the suspension ordered by the SCM, expressly relying on Articles 6 and 8. On 18 April 2022, the Chișinău District Court partially allowed the claim, found violations of those rights, and awarded him MDL 250,000 for non-pecuniary damage and MDL 30,000 for the costs and expenses in the criminal case. The court also recorded his reinstatement and the full payment of his salary for the period of suspension.

The Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the ruling on 27 October 2023. By a final decision of 4 March 2024, the Supreme Court of Justice reduced the non-pecuniary compensation to MDL 150,000 and upheld the other provisions. The final total awarded domestically was therefore MDL 180,000, of which MDL 30,000 was for costs. The ECHR decision indicates approximate equivalents of EUR 7,500 and EUR 1,500, respectively; these are the conversions stated in the document, not a calculation at the current exchange rate. The civil amounts are presented as awarded by judgment, without implying that the document also confirms their full payment.

Munteanu had not, however, spontaneously informed the ECHR about the civil proceedings or the favorable outcomes obtained. The Court learned about the compensation proceedings from information provided by the Government of the Republic of Moldova, after the application had been communicated to the authorities. The applicant submitted the final decision of March 2024 only after being invited to respond to a possible finding of abuse of the right of individual application.

The Government argued that the domestic proceedings concerned, at least in part, the same facts and complaints and that their outcome was decisive in determining whether Munteanu still retained victim status. The judge argued that the proceedings had different subject matters, that the national courts had not expressly recognized all the violations alleged in Strasbourg, and that the Government had in any event provided the necessary information. He denied any intention to mislead the Court.

The ECHR rejected these explanations, finding that the recognition of violations and the domestic remedy concerned an essential aspect of the application. The Court had to be able to assess the situation with knowledge of all relevant facts. The judges noted that the applicant was assisted by a lawyer, had been informed of the obligation to communicate, and had complied with it when he reported his criminal acquittal. In these circumstances, they considered the intentional nature of the failure to communicate the civil proceedings established.

The obligation to inform the Court of relevant circumstances is provided for in the ECHR Rules. A mere omission does not automatically result in the rejection of an application: the intention to mislead the Court must be established with sufficient certainty. In this case, the ECHR found an abuse of the right of individual application and applied the inadmissibility criterion set out in Article 35 of the Convention.

The decision was adopted unanimously by a committee of three judges of the Fifth Section and is final, pursuant to the Convention rules applicable to committees. It awards no new compensation, does not annul the amounts recognized by the Moldovan courts, and does not establish that the SCM procedure complied with the Convention. The outcome concerns the applicant’s procedural conduct: his initial complaints were not examined on the merits.

https://2eu.brussels/ro/news/cedo-respinge-cererea-unui-judecator-din-republica-moldova-pentru-ca-nu-a-informat-curtea-despre-despagubirile-obtinute-in-tara