CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mai 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 } .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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB4B39BDE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Published on 30 May 2022   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 42403/14 and 10323/16 Valentina HAMURARI against the Republic of Moldova and Tamara MIRON against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 2 June 2014 and 5 February 2016 respectively communicated on 11 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the partial divestment of the applicants’ retirement pension rights because the authorities were unable to verify the records of the applicants’ employers on statutory contribution periods. A short summary of each application and of the complaints is provided in the appendix.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of that provision? Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants ( Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, §§ 115-118, 13 December 2016)?   APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. and date of lodging Applicants’ name Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Representative Summary of facts 1. no. 42403/14 lodged on 02/06/2014 Valentina HAMURARI 1954 Chișinău Moldovan   Represented by Victor BAILO The applicant retired and provided the Social Security Authority with the documents and the information concerning her length of service and salary, as required by the law. The Social Security Authority refused to use the data provided by the applicant for the period from 1984 to 1993 because her employer at the time failed to submit social security reports after 2003, was not found at its official address and, therefore, the information provided by the applicant could not be cross ‑ checked. The applicant’s statutory contributions for the respective period were not included in the calculation and her pensions rights were significantly decreased. On 5   February 2014 the Supreme Court of Justice finally dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the ground that she failed to prove that the information she had provided concerning her salary rights and statutory contributions for the respective period was truthful.   The applicant complains in substance under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the decrease of her pension rights.   2. no. 10323/16 lodged on 05/02/2016 Tamara MIRON 1955 Chişinău Moldovan The applicant retired and provided the Social Security Authority with the documents and the information concerning her length of service and salary, as required by the law. The Social Security Authority refused to use the data provided by the applicant for the period from 1983 to 1998 because the archive of her employer at the time could not be located and, therefore, the information provided by the applicant could not be cross-checked. The applicant’s statutory contributions for the respective period were not included in the calculation and her pensions rights were significantly decreased. On 23 December 2015 the Supreme Court of Justice reversed the previous judgments in the applicant’s favour and finally dismissed her claims on the ground that her employer had failed to archive the information concerning its employees’ statutory contribution periods and therefore, the information provided by the applicant could not be cross-checked.   The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the inadequate reasons provided by the courts and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention about the decrease of her pension rights.