Communicated on 16 October 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 71569/14 V.B. against Romania lodged on 18 October 2014

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the failures of the courts (i) to lawfully summon the applicant at his home address throughout the proceedings brought against him by the National Council for the Study of Securitate Archives seeking a court order acknowledging that the applicant was a Securitate informant and (ii) to allow the extraordinary appeal of annulment brought by him seeking to re-open the aforementioned proceedings once he became aware of the final judgment granting the National Council for the Study of Securitate Archives’ request. In addition, it concerns the cancelation of the applicant’s pension rights granted for his participation in the popular revolt which overthrew the communist regime in Romania because he was declared a Securitate informant. In particular the applicant argued that the courts’ failures to lawfully summons him at his home address throughout the proceedings brought against him by the National Council for the Study of Securitate Archives and to re-open these proceedings amounted to a breach of his right of access to court and to adversarial proceedings under Article 6 of the Convention. Moreover, the cancelation of his pension rights because of him being declared a Securitate informant amounted to a breach of his property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Given the circumstances in which the applicant was summoned to appear before the courts during the proceeding brought against him by the National Council for the Study of Securitate Archives and the grounds provided by the court for dismissing the extraordinary appeal of annulment brought by him with the aim of re-opening the aforementioned proceedings, have the proceeding which took place in his absence complied with the requirements set out in Article 6 of the Convention?

2. Given the cancelation of the applicant’s pension rights as a result of court proceeding which took place in his absence, has there been an interference with his property rights? If so, was that interference in compliance with the conditions set out in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as interpreted in the Court’s jurisprudence?