CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 janvier 2025

.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 } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } Published on 17 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 67433/17 Stanislav CVASNIUC against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 29 August 2017 communicated on 30 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns alleged incitement to commit a disciplinary offence and insufficient reasoning of the courts in that regard (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention), which led to the applicant’s dismissal allegedly in the absence of sufficient guarantees (Article 8). The applicant was a police officer. Before the relevant events (during more than 15 years of service), he had never been sanctioned for any disciplinary offence. The relevant provisions and other legal material regarding professional integrity testing, introduced in the Republic of Moldova in 2013 and governed by Law no. 325, have been set out in Cavca v. the Republic of Moldova , no.   21766/22, 9 January 2025 (not final). By Decision of the Constitutional Court of 16 April 2015, some provisions of the abovementioned law were declared unconstitutional. Following a professional integrity testing carried out between 23 October 2014 and 8 April 2015, the National Anticorruption Center (NAC) informed the applicant’s employer that he had failed the test. As a result, disciplinary proceedings were brought, and the applicant was dismissed from office. The applicant challenged the decision, claiming that all the evidence during his professional integrity testing was gathered unlawfully, as the relevant legal provisions were later declared unconstitutional. He also challenged his dismissal from office, as a consequence of incitement. On 11 May 2016, the first instance court rejected his claims, noting the fact that all the evidence was gathered before the decision of the Constitutional Court and that the applicant was dismissed from office in accordance with the Labour Code and Law no 320 on the activity of the Police and the status of the policeman, and not Law no 325. Additionally, the court indicated that the actions of the undercover integrity testers were not an incitement, but a simulation. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice upheld that decision. The judgement became final on 1 March 2017. The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, that the domestic courts did not provide sufficient reasons for their judgments, notably by responding to his serious arguments. He considers, as stated in the decision of the Constitutional Court, that the law did not offer sufficient safeguards against abuse. He also complains, relying on Article 8, that his dismissal from office constitutes an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with his right to respect for private and family life and that the courts did not examine that interference under the proportionality test. He argues in particular that the evidence during the integrity testing was obtained unlawfully and therefore could not be used in courts, and the actions of the undercover integrity testers constituted an incitement.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, insofar as the applicant may be considered to have raised an arguable claim of entrapment (see Cavca , cited above, § 61), did the domestic courts adequately state the reasons on which their decisions were based, notably by giving a specific and express reply to the arguments of the applicant which were decisive for the outcome of the proceedings and by ensuring adequate procedural guarantees in conformity with the requirements in the Court’s case-law under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, Cavca , cited above, §§ 63-65)? 2.     Did the applicant’s dismissal amount to an interference with his right to respect for his private and family life, contrary to Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law (notably, in respect of guarantees against abuse (see, for instance, Iordachi and Others v. Moldova , no. 25198/02, §§ 29-54, 10 February 2009) and proportionate in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see, Pişkin v. Turkey , no. 33399/18, §§ 200-229, 15   December 2020)?   The Government are requested to provide the Court with a full copy of the case file.