CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 April 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10324/16 Elena CAŢER against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 11 February 2016 communicated on 25 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged unfairness of civil labour proceedings. The applicant challenged her dismissal from employment in courts and was successful at first instance. The Court or Appeal reversed that judgment following a hearing held without the participation of the applicant. The summons to the hearing before the Court of Appeal was mailed only one day before the hearing and received by the applicant on the very day of the hearing. The applicant raised the problem of improper summoning in her appeal on points of law, but to no avail. She complains before the Court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were not fair in view of her improper summoning for the hearing of the Court of Appeal. She also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she lost property over salaries as a result of the unfairness in the proceedings. 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 ( Bucuria v. Moldova , no. 10758/05, §§ 21-26, 5 January 2010)?   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 ( Kotov v.   Russia [GC], no. 54522/00, § 117, 3 April 2012)?