FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF AGRIMEC S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 21038/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 October 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Agrimec S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting 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. 21038/11) 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 22 March 2011 by a Moldovan company, Agrimec S.R.L. (“the applicant company”), which is registered in Ialoveni and was represented by Mr A. Mandraburcă, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;
the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the relevant time, Mr O. Rotari, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the Government’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 8 October 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the applicant company having to bear an individual and excessive burden by paying the same tax twice. The applicant company relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF AGRIMEC S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 21038/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 October 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Agrimec S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting 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. 21038/11) 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 22 March 2011 by a Moldovan company, Agrimec S.R.L. (“the applicant company”), which is registered in Ialoveni and was represented by Mr A. Mandraburcă, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;
the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the relevant time, Mr O. Rotari, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the Government’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 8 October 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the applicant company having to bear an individual and excessive burden by paying the same tax twice. The applicant company relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
2. During 2007 and 2008 the applicant company imported 1,172,430 kg of rye flour to the Republic of Moldova. It obtained an exemption from paying the value-added tax (“VAT”) on these goods from the customs authority, based on a Government decision allowing such exemptions if the goods were sold to Moldovan companies producing bread or animal products. The applicant company sold almost 86% of the imported flour to such companies. The remainder was sold to other companies. Since these additional sales were not covered by the exemption, the applicant company paid VAT (20%) to the State budget via the tax authority (102,199 Moldovan lei, “MDL”, the equivalent of approximately 6,858 euros (EUR) at the time).
3. On 13 March 2009 the Head of the customs authority wrote a letter to the central fiscal authority asking the latter to confirm that, whenever merchandise imported with fiscal exemptions changed its destination, the companies responsible for that change had to pay VAT via the customs authority “whether or not VAT had already been paid to the fiscal authorities after the sale of goods”. In a letter of 3 April 2009 addressed to the customs authority, the central tax authority confirmed that solution.
4. On 26 and 27 March 2009 the customs authority found that the applicant company had failed to inform it about the changed destination of a part of the goods. It calculated the VAT for that part (MDL 102,199) and penalties for the sum of MDL 23,238 (EUR 1,565), to be paid to the State budget. The applicant company had to pay these sums immediately.
5. The applicant contested the decisions of 26 and 27 March 2009, arguing that it had already paid the VAT to the State budget and had been sanctioned at a time when it had no debt towards the State. It also noted that under the Tax Code any doubt about applying the tax legislation was to be interpreted in favour of the taxpayer.
6. On 21 June 2010 the Chișinău Court of Appeal accepted its claims, finding that the applicant company had been subjected to double taxation.
7. On 10 November 2010 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed that judgment, rejecting the applicant company’s claims as unfounded. It found that the applicant company had failed to inform the customs authority about the change of destination of its merchandise and was correctly sanctioned for that under the applicable domestic law.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
8. The applicant company complained that the imposition of double taxation had compelled it to bear an excessive burden, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
9. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
10. The general principles concerning the “fair balance” that must be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights, as well as to the reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interference and the aim sought to be realised have been summarised, for instance, in NIT S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova ([GC] no. 28470/12, §§ 252-254, 5 April 2022). The general principles concerning the applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to taxation matters has been summarised in Krayeva v. Ukraine (no. 72858/13, §§ 23 and 24, 13 January 2022).
11. The Government argued that the applicant company had failed to declare the change in the destination of the merchandise, thus breaching the Customs Code. The payment of VAT under the customs regime should not be equated with the payment of VAT under the general tax regime, as different authorities were involved and under different legal bases.
12. The Court notes that although it had paid the correct amount of VAT to the State budget, the applicant company did so via the wrong authority, while failing to inform the competent one, as expressly required by law. As a result, a penalty could be necessary in order to impose order in the manner of paying tax and its supervision, as well as to cover any additional costs to the authorities from having to sort out incorrect tax reporting. However, as explained both by the Supreme Court of Justice and the Government, the penalty imposed in the present case was due to the delay with which the VAT was paid to the customs authority, and not in order to ensure rigorous tax collection or to cover additional costs. It is noted that the money had been paid long before to the State budget, without any delay.
13. Moreover, in addition to the penalty imposed, the applicant company also had to pay the entire amount of VAT a second time. The Supreme Court of Justice did not explain how that solution was proportionate to the aim of protecting the public interest to ensure the payment of taxes, given that the entirety of the tax had been paid on time and that the State budget had suffered no decrease or delay in the amount owed by the applicant company.
14. The Supreme Court of Justice did not find that the applicant company had deliberately or by mistake evaded taxes. Moreover, during the sanctioning of the applicant company and long after the period for which it was required to pay VAT, the highest customs and tax authorities were apparently not entirely sure about the correct manner of levying the VAT (see paragraph 3 above). Where even the competent authorities had doubts as to the correct manner of proceeding that needed to be dispelled in a letter exchange, it was entirely possible for others to make an honest mistake in the correct procedure, as had happened apparently in the present case. In such circumstances, sanctioning the applicant company with the repeated payment of the tax and a penalty amounted in the Court’s view to a disproportionate interference with its property rights contrary to the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
15. There has accordingly been a violation of that provision in the present case.
16. Having been invited to submit observations and any claims for just satisfaction, the applicant company did not submit any claims. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award it any sum on that account.
However, the Court notes that the breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention found by the Court entitles the applicant company to ask for the reopening of the domestic proceedings, in which it will be able to claim compensation.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 October 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Martina Keller María Elósegui Deputy Registrar President
