Communicated on 28 June 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 50891/08 Andrei CASAP against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 7 October 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Andrei Casap , is a Moldovan national who was born in 1981 and lives in Criuleni . He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Pelin , a lawyer practising in Chi ș inău .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

From 2000 to 2004 the Ministry of Defence paid for the applicant ’ s education in a higher military educational i nstitution abroad. On 20 August 2004 the applicant signed a ten-year labour agreement with the Ministry of Defence to work as an engineer in an ammunition laboratory.

On 14 September 2005 he requested the termination of this employment because of the irregular work schedule. Fourteen days later he did not appear at work, assuming that his resignation had been accepted.

However, on 18 March 2007 he was summoned to court as defendant in a case in which the Ministry of Defence sought the repayment of the costs of his studies. On that occasion he learned that on 11 November 2005 the Ministry of Defence had terminated his employment on disciplinary grounds, his having committed a wrongdoing undermining the good name of the military, and in particular, of having caused pecuniary damage to the Ministry of Defence by not compensating it for the costs of his studies.

On 28 March 2007 the applicant appealed against the order of 11 November 2005, seeking to change the reference to the reason for his dismissal from that of “disciplinary grounds” to “upon request”. He argued that no disciplinary proceedings had been ever instituted in respect of him and that he had not committed any action discrediting the armed forces.

On 13 December 2007 the Chi șinău Court of Appeal upheld the applicant ’ s appeal and ordered the Ministry of Defence to change the reason for his dismissal. The court found that the Ministry of Defence had incorrectly interpreted the costs of the applicant ’ s studies as constituting pecuniary damage under section 2 of Law no. 162 on the status of military officers. The Ministry appealed.

On 17 April 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed that appeal, quashed the judgment of 13 December 2007 and rejected the applicant ’ s claims as ill-founded. The court found that by leaving the military before the expiry of the labour agreement and after the Ministry had invested in his education, the applicant had caused pecuniary damage which could be deemed under Section 2 of Law no. 162 to constitute wrongdoing undermining the good name of the military. One of the three judges on the panel of the Supreme Court of Justice dissented, arguing, inter alia , that the Ministry had not substantiated the existence of any damage which could have served as grounds for disciplinary dismissal, particularly given that the civil action the Ministry had brought seeking compensation for that damage had been ultimately rejected by the Chișinău Court of Appeal on 13 November 2007.

B. Relevant domestic law

Under section 2 of Law no. 162 of 30 September 2005 on the status of military officers, “wrongdoing undermining the good name of the military” ( delict ce discrediteaza titlul de militar ) is any action or inaction on the part of a military officer causing pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary damage to the military (or to its public image, honour or reputation).

Under Section 35 (3) of Law no. 162 a military officer may be dismissed, inter alia , for having committed wrongdoing undermining the good name of the military (let. k)) and his employment may be terminated at his own request (let. m)). Under Section 35 (11), officers dismissed under letters k) and m) before completing five years of service shall compensate the State for the costs of their studies in an amount proportionate to the time not spent in military service.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains in essence under Article 8 of the Convention that his dismissal from the armed forces on disciplinary grounds for an act of wrongdoing that he did not commit violated his right to reputation and denied him the chance of honourable future employment.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see Milojević and Others v. Serbia , nos. 43519/07, 43524/07 and 45247/07 , §§ 59-69, 12 January 2016 )?