CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 juin 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }     Communicated on 13 June 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 3060/07 Serghei SOBCO against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 15 December 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Serghei Sobco, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Slobozia, the Transdniestrian region of Moldova. He is represented before the Court by Mr P. Postica, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. At the time of the events the applicant was a sports teacher in a public school. In December 2005 the applicant was dismissed. He initiated reinstatement proceedings in the courts of the self-proclaimed Transdniestrian republic; however, he was not successful. The proceedings ended with a final decision of the “Supreme Court of Transdniestria” of 15   June 2006. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings were not fair because the courts which examined his case were not “tribunals established by law”. He also complains under Article 13 that he did not have an effective remedy against the breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, by a tribunal established by law, in accordance with Article   6 § 1 of the Convention?