Communicated on 29 November 2019
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 44595/15
Constantin BUZOIANU
against Romania
lodged on 1 September 2015
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application originated in the alleged unlawful termination of the applicant’s service as member and chairman of the Board of the Insurance Supervisory Commission for failure to fulfil his professional duties following a decision of the joined chambers of the Romanian Parliament on 16 October 2012, a year after his appointment in this position for a term of five years. The applicant alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that his right of access to court was breached because he could not have his challenge against the Romanian Parliament’s decision of 16 October 2012 examined on the merits by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law given that (i), on the one hand, the ordinary courts dismissed his challenge against this decision because the latter could be reviewed exclusively by way of a constitutional challenge and (ii), on the other hand, the Constitutional Court dismissed his constitutional challenge against the decision as inadmissible because the Romanian law did not provide for a right of individual application to the Constitutional Court. The applicant alleged under Article 13 of the Convention that the proceedings brought by him before the ordinary domestic courts and the Constitutional Court did not provide him with an effective remedy for the alleged breach of his Convention rights under Article 6. Relying in substance on Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention taken jointly, the applicant alleged that he was not provided with any judicial remedy enabling him to challenge the unlawful termination of his employment by the Romanian Parliament’s decision of 16 October 2012, which had had negative effects of a pecuniary and non‑pecuniary nature for him.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Is Article 6 of the Convention, under its civil head, applicable to the facts of the present case? If, so, was the applicant’s right of access to court under Article 6 of the Convention breached by the domestic authorities because he could not have his challenge against the Romanian Parliament’s decision of 16 October 2012 examined on the merits by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law?
2. Did the proceedings brought by the applicant before the ordinary domestic courts and the Constitutional Court against the Romanian Parliament’s decision of 16 October 2012 provide him with an effective remedy for the alleged breach of his Convention rights under Article 6, as required under Article 13 of the Convention?
3. Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable to the facts of the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Denisov v. Ukra ine [GC], no. 76639/11, 25 September 2018)? If so, has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights to private life and to an effective remedy guaranteed by Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, in so far as the domestic legal system failed to provide the applicant with adequate judicial protection and an effective domestic remedy against the alleged unlawful termination of his employment?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy