Published on 23 May 2022

SECOND SECTION

Applications nos. 34973/13 and 31046/15 Ecaterina GONÅ¢A against the Republic of Moldova and Maria GUÅ¢U against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 22 April 2013 and 17 June 2015 respectively communicated on 3 May 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the refusal to grant the applicants various social security benefits on the ground that their husbands were affiliated to special social security schemes, while other persons in the same legal situation had been granted the claimed benefits by final court judgements. A short summary of each application and of the complaints is provided in the appendix.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Do the facts of the cases disclose a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts adopt divergent decisions concerning the rights of a group of persons, including the applicants, in essentially the same legal situation (see Beian v. Romania (no. 1) , no. 30658/05, §§ 29-40, ECHR 2007‑V (extracts))? Did they give relevant and sufficient reasons for their judgments?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of that provision ( Cazacu v. Moldova , no. 40117/02, 23 October 2007)?

3. Have the applicants been subject to discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, considering that other persons in the same legal situation had the right to benefit from social security payments recognised by final judicial decisions?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no. and date of lodging

Applicants’ name Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Representative

Summary of facts

1.no. 34973/13

lodged on 22/04/2013

Ecaterina GONÈšA

1985Chișinău

Moldovan

Represented by Vitalie POSTOLACHE

The applicant’s husband is a police officer and at the time of the events was attached to a special social security scheme for police officers. After giving birth, the applicant was refused a maternity allowance because the police social security scheme did not provide for maternity benefits. On 24 October 2012 the Supreme Court of Justice reversed the judgment in the applicant’s favour and finally dismissed her claims.

On 1 November 2012 the Supreme Court of Justice issued the advisory recommendation no. 17 which confirmed that the domestic law should be interpreted as granting persons in the applicant’s situation entitlement to a maternity allowance.

The applicant complains of a violation of her rights under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention about being wrongfully deprived of her right to a maternity allowance and about being discriminated against in comparison with other police officers’ spouses who had been awarded such an allowance.

2.no. 31046/15 lodged on 17/06/2015

Maria GUÈšU

1938Chișinău

Moldovan

Represented by Parascovia COPACINSCHI

The applicant’s husband was a prosecutor and was attached to a special social security scheme for prosecutors. After his demise, the applicant was refused a survivor’s pension because her husband had been entitled to old-age pension under the prosecutor’s social security scheme and not under the general scheme and the special scheme did not provide for any survivorship benefits. On 17 December 2014 the Supreme Court of Justice reversed the judgments in the applicant’s favour and dismissed her claims.

The applicant complains of a violation of her rights under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention about being wrongfully deprived of her right to a survivor’s pension and about being discriminated against in comparison with other prosecutors’ widows who had been awarded such a pension.