CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mars 2019

.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 }   Communicated on 5 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 16137/15 Victor DANILIUC against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 23 March 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a labour dispute between the applicant and his former employer concerning his dismissal. The applicant was successful at first and second instance courts. However, the Supreme Court reversed those judgments in proceedings which were not public and without giving the applicant a possibility to be heard in person. The applicant complains under Articles 6, 13 and 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the proceedings were not fair and that he had lost property on that account. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( Godorozea v. Moldova , no. 17023/05, § 32, 6 October 2009)?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   3.     The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.