CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mai 2016

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 }   Communicated on 31 May 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 1085/10 Iacob GUJA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 19 October 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Iacob Guja, is a Moldovan national, who was born in   1970 and lives in Şestaci. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The factual background to this case was described in Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, §§ 9-29, ECHR 2008. In that case the Court found a breach of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the fact that the applicant had been dismissed from work after having disclosed to journalists documents concerning alleged illegalities which took place at his place of work. After the Court had adopted the above judgment, the applicant applied to the domestic courts to have the domestic judgments which had confirmed his sacking set aside. He was successful and, on 28 May 2008, the Supreme Court of Justice ordered his reinstatement. On 29 May 2008 the applicant was received by the Prosecutor General, who asked him to resign from his position. Since the applicant refused, the Prosecutor General told him that “he had enough potential to force him do that”. He was told to go home and to wait for the employment order. On 6 June 2008 the applicant was invited to the Prosecutor General’s Office and presented with an order of employment. He was not, however, allocated an office and was not given a badge to be able to enter the building. Each morning he had to wait outside the building until someone from the superiors would allow his access. Since he had no office, he stayed in the library or in the press office. However, when other employees from the press office had to leave, he was locked outside the office with the explanation that the superiors had not allowed his access to sensitive information. The applicant was not given any tasks. On 16 June 2008 the applicant was presented with a dismissal order effective as of 10 June 2008. The reason for his dismissal was the resignation of the former Prosecutor General who had employed him. According to the order, the Trade Union consented to his dismissal on 6   June 2008, i.e. on the date of his employment. On an unspecified date the applicant contested the order of 16 June 2008 before the Chisinau Court of Appeal. He argued, inter alia , that since 2003 the Prosecutor General had been changed twice and never had anyone been dismissed on that ground. He also invoked Article 46 of the Convention and submitted that his dismissal amounted to a breach of that Article. On 17 December 2008 the Chisinau Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s action and ruled that his dismissal had been in accordance with the law. In so far as the applicant’s argument about Article 46 was concerned, the Court of Appeal considered that the Court’s judgment had been implemented once the domestic courts had revised the judgments which had confirmed his sacking of 2003. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court of Justice; however, it was dismissed on 29 April 2009. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that his renewed sacking was in breach of his freedom of expression. 2.     The applicant also complains under Article 46 of the Convention that the Government failed to implement the Court’s judgment of 12 February 2008. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the fact that the execution of Guja v. Moldova ([GC], no.   14277/04, ECHR 2008) is currently pending before the Committee of Ministers, and taking into account the measures taken so far by the respondent Government to abide by the Court’s judgment, is the Court competent to examine the complaints related to the execution of the judgment?   2.     If so, was there a violation of Article 10 and/or of Article 46 of the Convention given the manner in which the authorities implemented the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 28 May 2008 to reinstate the applicant into his previous position?