CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 March 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 2024/16 Svetlana TONCIUC against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 31 December 2015 communicated on 10 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The Superior Council of Magistrates proposed the President of the country the applicant’s candidacy for appointment as a judge. However, the President refused to do so on the basis of a confidential note received from the secret service in which the applicant was accused of having been involved in schemes of an unlawful nature involving two companies. The applicant requested information from the secret service concerning the accusations against her, but without any success. She then initiated a court action against the secret service asking the court to order it to retract the accusations made in the letter sent to the President’s Office. However, the action was dismissed as ill-founded and the applicant could not even have access to a copy of the letter, let alone the materials on which it was based. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts did not properly motivate their decision and that the proceedings did not comply with the requirements of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms. She also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the confidential letter amounted to defamation and thus to a breach of her right to respect for her private life. She also complains under Article 13 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, 19 September 2017)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of dismissing by the domestic courts of her action?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 ( Petrenco v. Moldova , no. 20928/05, 30 March 2010)?