Published on 14 March 2022

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 4932/12 Violeta CHISILIÅ¢A and Eduard GALUSCEAC against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 6 January 2012 communicated on 25 February 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged breach of procedural guarantees in the domestic courts’ examination of the applicants’ court action. The applicants’ bid to occupy vacant judicial posts after having passed the relevant examination was dismissed as made outside the time-limit set for participation in the competition.

The applicants complain of breaches of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the initial court composition was changed in breach of applicable rules and without any explanation; that their right to “equality of arms” was breached when the courts accepted as evidence a Supreme Court of Justice judgment submitted by the other party, but rejected to examine several decisions of the same court, submitted by the applicants, or the file of one of the successful candidates in the competition; and that the courts have failed to provide sufficient reasons for their judgments by not replying to the most serious arguments raised by the applicants, notably to support the submission that they had not been late in submitting their bid, or to respond to one of their claims.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Did the manner of replacing the initial composition of the Supreme Court of Justice with another observe the “tribunal established by law” requirement ( Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 211 et seq., 1 December 2020)?

(b) Was the principle of “equality of arms” breached as a result of the refusal of the courts’ refusal to examine certain evidence submitted by the applicants ( Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, § 146, 19 September 2017)?

(c) Did the courts give sufficient reasons for their judgments? Notably, did they examine all the applicants’ claims and respond to those of their arguments that were capable of affecting the outcome of the proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis , Mitrofan v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 50054/07, §§ 48-55, 15 January 2013)?

(d) Did the courts’ alleged failure to deal with one of the applicant’s claims result in the breach of their right of “access to court” ( Willems and Gorjon v. Belgium , nos. 74209/16 and 3 others, §§ 76 et seq., 21 September 2021)?