FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43194/17
Alexandru URSU
against the Republic of Moldova
 
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 21 May 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. 43194/17) 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 8 June 2017 by a Moldovan national, Mr Alexandru Ursu (“the applicant”), who was born in 1962 and lives in Luxembourg;
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 present case concerns the refusal by the domestic courts to recognise the applicant’s alleged right to replace his deceased father, U.S., in civil proceedings concerning the registration of property rights, and the resulting discontinuation of those proceedings.
2.  In 1961 the local authorities allocated a plot of land to U.S. for construction purposes. He subsequently built a house and several ancillary constructions on it, including a barn and a cellar.
3.  In 2012 the cadastral authority prepared a cadastral plan for the registration of the land and the constructions situated on it. However, the barn and the cellar were omitted from the plan.
4.  On 14 April 2014 U.S. submitted to the cadastral authority a request for the registration of the previously omitted constructions.
5.  On 7 May 2014 U.S. received a letter of refusal from the cadastral authority, indicating that registration of the constructions was not possible at that time owing to restrictions imposed on his property by a court decision.
6.  On 22 May 2014 U.S. challenged the cadastral authority’s refusal in court.
7.  On 28 March 2016 the Chișinău District Court dismissed U.S.’s claims, holding that, pursuant to Cadastral Law no. 154/1998, the cadastral authority was unable to register any property on which restrictions had been imposed by a court decision.
8.  On 22 April 2016 U.S. lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Chișinău District Court.
9.  On 23 May 2016 U.S. died.
10.  The applicant requested the Chișinău Court of Appeal to suspend the proceedings until his father’s legal heirs could be identified.
11.  On 7 July 2016 the Chișinău Court of Appeal granted the applicant’s request and ordered the suspension of the proceedings pending the identification of U.S.’s legal heirs. Third-party interveners lodged an appeal on points of law against that decision.
12.  On 5 October 2016 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the appeal on points of law, quashed the decision of 7 July 2016 and ordered a re‑examination of the case by the Chișinău Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Justice held that the appellate court had failed to assess whether the rights in dispute were transferable to U.S.’s legal heirs or were personal in nature.
13.  On 17 November 2016 the Chișinău Court of Appeal, upon re‑examination of the applicant’s request to suspend the proceedings, dismissed the request and discontinued the proceedings. The court held that the rights in dispute were not transferable to U.S.’s legal heirs and noted, in particular:
“Procedural succession occurs only in cases where the transfer of substantive rights is possible.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 1446 of the Civil Code, patrimonial rights and obligations of a personal nature which may belong solely to the deceased cannot be inherited, nor can rights and obligations (provided by contract or by law) which are valid only during the lifetime of the deceased and which cease upon his or her death.
In the present case, the court notes that the legal relationship at issue does not allow for procedural succession, given that the dispute was of a personal nature for U.S. and concerns the challenging of an administrative act, namely the disagreement with the response received from the cadastral authority on 7 May 2014 regarding its refusal to make changes in the Real Estate Register and to enter the ancillary constructions therein.
Accordingly, the court concludes that the right of the claimant, U.S. (who is deceased), to challenge the refusal of the cadastral authority is of a personal nature and, pursuant to Article 1446 of the Civil Code, cannot be transferred by way of inheritance. For this reason, there can be no procedural succession under Article 70 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In such circumstances, the court concludes that the civil proceedings must be terminated, as their continuation in the absence of the deceased claimant would be contrary to the applicable legal provisions, given that procedural succession is not possible in cases of this nature.”
14.  On 13 January 2017 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of 17 November 2016, arguing that the disputed rights concerned property and were therefore transferable and that the courts were required to accept procedural succession in the present case.
15.  On 15 March 2017 the Supreme Court of Justice declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible and upheld the decision of the Chișinău Court of Appeal of 17 November 2016.
16.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the restriction of his right of access to a court.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
17.  The applicant submitted that the civil action brought by U.S. had specifically concerned the protection of his property rights, which had been infringed as a result of the cadastral authority’s failure to register the ancillary constructions in question. He argued that the domestic courts’ refusal to recognise his right to replace his father in the proceedings had restricted his right of access to a court, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
18.  The Government contested the applicant’s submissions, arguing that the disputed legal relationship had not allowed for the transfer of rights, given that the litigation had been of a personal nature for U.S. and had concerned the challenging of an administrative act, and that the right in question could not be transferred by way of inheritance. Moreover, they argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies, noting that, following his inheritance of the property, he could have initiated fresh proceedings against the cadastral authority.
19.  The Court reiterates that it is not its task to take the place of the domestic courts. It is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation. The Court is not a court of appeal from the national courts, and it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, § 186, 6 November 2018, with further references). The Court should not act as a court of fourth instance and will not therefore question under Article 6 § 1 the national courts’ assessment, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13, § 149, 17 October 2019, with further references).
20.  In the present case, the domestic courts held that the action brought by U.S. originated from his disagreement with the response he had received from the cadastral authority. They concluded that the right in question was of a personal nature and, pursuant to Article 1446 of the Civil Code, could not be transferred by way of inheritance (see paragraph 13 above). The Court finds no basis to consider that the domestic courts’ interpretation of the relevant legal provisions was either arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable. This finding does not preclude the applicant, in his capacity as U.S.’s heir and owner of the property in question, from bringing a new action before the domestic courts against the cadastral authority concerning the registration of property rights in the Real Estate Register.
21.  It follows that this application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 June 2026.
 
 Martina Keller María Elósegui
 Deputy Registrar President