CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 septembre 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 16 September 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 17047/07 Alexei SULTAN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 28 March 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Alexei Sultan, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Holercani. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Cobzac, a lawyer practising in Chisinau. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. By a final decision the Holercani Mayor’s Office was bound to pay the applicant some salary arrears. The debtor, however, failed to pay those amounts in full. Therefore, the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Holercani Mayor’s Office, seeking payment of the remaining amount, as well as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 5 May 2006 the Dubăsari District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, explaining his right to appeal before the appellate court. Later on, the applicant appealed against that judgment and reiterated his claims. On 5 September 2006 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the lower court. The appellate court noted that the applicant was entitled to lodge an appeal on points of law against its decision before the Supreme Court of Justice within 15 days. That decision was served on the applicant on 30 October 2006. On 3 November 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against that decision. On an unspecified date, the applicant received a letter from the Supreme Court of Justice informing him that his appeal on points of law had been left without examination since the appellate court’s decision of 5 September 2006 had become final on the date of delivery. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his right of access to a tribunal was breached as a result of the refusal of the Supreme Court of Justice to examine his appeal on points of law. 2.     The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of any effective remedies in respect of his right of access to a tribunal.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the refusal of the domestic courts to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law compatible with the requirements of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention?