Published on 23 May 2022

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 41232/13 Veaceslav BALACCI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 29 May 2013 communicated on 2 May 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant’s dismissal from the Customs Service after he had denounced customs fraud involving public officials. In particular, on 30 November 2009 the applicant, who was at the time an employee of the Customs Service, submitted a criminal complaint to the Prosecutor General’s office concerning origin fraud (transshipment fraud) in meat imports which involved the Director of the Customs Service at the time. Immediately after, criminal proceedings were initiated against him and he was dismissed from his position for allegedly failing to carry out his duties. The criminal proceedings were subsequently discontinued and he was reinstated in July 2010. A month later he made public statements concerning the same customs fraud. He was suspended and later dismissed a second time from his position for alleged unauthorised leave but was reinstated in December 2011. Returning to work, he was dismissed a third time on the ground that due to the reorganisation of the Customs Service his post had been cut. The applicant appealed against his dismissal arguing, among others, that his post had not been effectively liquidated, because a post with the same job description continued to exist under a different name, and that his dismissal was an act of retaliation for his whistle-blowing. His appeal was finally rejected on 29 November 2012. He complains of a violation of his rights under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s dismissal related to his exercise of the freedom of expression? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 (see Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria , no. 40072/13, §§ 153-81, 19 October 2021; Guja v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2) , no. 1085/10, 27 February 2018)?