Published on 23 May 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 19529/16
Cristina LEONTE
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 30 March 2016
communicated on 3 May 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the refusal to grant the applicant maternity‑related payments as an insured person, despite her statutory contributions as an employee. In particular, as from 2012 the applicant was the only owner of a limited liability company and also its administrator under a labour agreement. She paid social security statutory contributions out of her salary as any other employee. In 2013 she was granted by the Social Security Authority decreased maternity-related benefits as an uninsured person; the authority considered that she did not qualify as an insured person because she could not be simultaneously the owner of a company and its employee. The applicant appealed against this decision arguing that her labour agreement was never contested and that the domestic law provided insured status to anyone who had made statutory contributions under labour agreements without discrimination. She submitted a letter from the Labour Inspection according to which the conclusion of a labour agreement in her situation was a matter of discretion. On 30 September 2015 the applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Justice, which upheld the reasons provided by the Social Security Authority. The applicant complains of a violation of her rights under Article 6 of the Convention and, in substance, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, alone and read in conjunction with Article 14 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? Did the domestic courts comply with their obligation under that provision of the Convention to give reasons for their decisions and to reply to specific, pertinent and important arguments by the parties (Pişkin v. Turkey, no. 33399/18, §§ 146-151, 15 December 2020)?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s 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 (Cazacu v. Moldova, no. 40117/02, 23 October 2007)? Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, §§ 115-118, 13 December 2016)?
3. Has the applicant been subject to discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, considering that other persons under labour agreements had the right to benefit from social security payments?