Published on 31 January 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Applications nos. 70267/17 and 18424/18 Doina ŢÎMPĂU against Romania and Lorica POPA against Romania lodged on 14 September 2017 and 12 April 2018 respectively communicated on 13 January 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applications concern the termination of the applicants’ employment as teachers of Orthodox religion in school, after the archbishop revoked the endorsement ( binecuvântarea ) granted to the applicants to that effect. The domestic courts found that they lacked jurisdiction to examine the objections raised by the applicants about their dismissal from work.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Application no. 70267/17

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings concerning termination of the applicant’s employment, giving rise to the decision no. 1590 of 14 December 2016 of the Suceava County Court, and the final decision no. 500 of 21 June 2017 of the Suceava Court of Appeal (see, mutatis mutandis , Károly Nagy v. Hungary ([GC], no. 56665/09, §§ 43 and 78, 14 September 2017)?

2. If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as the domestic courts considered that they lacked jurisdiction to examine the legality of the decision of 19 May 2015 whereby the archbishop of Suceava and Rădăuţi revoked the endorsement granted to the applicant for teaching Orthodox religion in school?

3. Was Article 8 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings leading in the present case to the termination of the applicant’s employment as teacher of Orthodox religion (see, mutatis mutandis , Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, §§ 109-113, ECHR 2014 (extracts), Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 115-17, 25 September 2018, and Pişkin v. Turkey , no. 33399/18, §§ 172-88, 15 December 2020), bearing in mind, in particular, the reasons for her dismissal (alleged misconduct in class: using indecent and vulgar language towards the pupils and constantly reprimanding them) and the consequences that dismissal entailed for her private life (left without any source of income after twenty years of employment as a teacher).

4. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy , no. 39128/05, §§ 38 and 51, 20 October 2009, and Fernández Martínez , cited above, § 21)?

Application no. 18424/18

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings concerning termination of the applicant’s employment, giving rise to the decision no. 6740 of 29 June 2016 of the Bucharest County Court, and the final decision no. 4327 of 14 September 2017 (notified on 12 October 2017) of the Bucharest Court of Appeal (see, mutatis mutandis , Károly Nagy v. Hungary ([GC], no. 56665/09, §§ 43 and 78, 14 September 2017)?

2. If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as the domestic courts considered that they lacked jurisdiction to examine the legality of the decision of 15 October 2015 whereby the archbishop of Bucharest revoked the endorsement granted to the applicant for teaching Orthodox religion in school?

3. Was Article 8 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings leading in the present case to the termination of the applicant’s employment as teacher of Orthodox religion (see, mutatis mutandis , Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, §§ 109-113, ECHR 2014 (extracts), Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 115-17, 25 September 2018, and Pişkin v. Turkey , no. 33399/18, §§ 172-88, 15 December 2020), bearing in mind, in particular, the reasons for her dismissal (being unable to attract more pupils to register for, and attend, the classes of Orthodox religion and the teacher of religion being the only teacher whose employment was conditioned by an authorisation in addition to the academic credentials) and the consequences that dismissal entailed for her private life (left without work and without any source of income).

4. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy , no. 39128/05, §§ 38 and 51, 20 October 2009, and Fernández Martínez , cited above, § 21)?