FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19188/04
by Timofei IURASCU
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta, judges,
and Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 May 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Timofei Iurascu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1936 and lives in Cahul. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Stoian, a lawyer practising in Cahul. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent at the time, Mr V. Pârlog.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant worked as a senior forest guard (egher –“guard”) in “Moldsilva”, a State organisation charged with forest protection and development. In August 1999 that organisation was liquidated and two new organisations were created; one of them was “Silva-Sud” in Cahul (“the Organisation”).
According to the Organisation, by order of 9 August 1999 the applicant was hired as a guard.
According to the applicant, he did not submit an application to the Organisation until 12 August 1999 and that was for the position of forest protection and anti-poaching inspector (“inspector”).
On 21 November 2001 the State Forestry Agency recommended to its subdivisions (including the Organisation) that the position of guard be abolished. On 29 November 2001 the Organisation adopted an order for the abolition of that position. On that basis, it dismissed the applicant by order of 1 April 2002.
The applicant initiated court proceedings, claiming that he had been unlawfully dismissed since he was not employed in the post which had been abolished but was in fact an inspector.
On 3 July 2003 the Cahul District Court found that the original of the applicant’s application of 12 August 1999 was not in the Organisation’s files, but the copy submitted by him had the signature of its secretary who confirmed having received the original and having transmitted it to the human resources department. The Organisation could not supply the original of the order for hiring the applicant on 9 August 1999 because it had been destroyed in a flood. The copy presented to the court did not bear the applicant’s signature as required by law. The court further found that during 1999-2001 the applicant had issued a number of official documents (such as fines against persons who had committed various administrative offences against forestry regulations) and had signed them as an inspector of the Organisation. In 1999 the Organisation had issued the applicant an identity card indicating that he was employed as an inspector.
Based on all the evidence, the court accepted the applicant’s claims and ordered his immediate reinstatement, as well as the payment of salary arrears for the entire period of involuntary absence from work.
On 21 October 2003 the Cahul Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. In addition to confirming the findings of the lower court, the Court of Appeal added that by instituting legal proceedings against several persons fined by the applicant in his capacity as an inspector of the Organisation, the director of the Organisation had confirmed the lawfulness of the relevant acts and the applicant’s position. In an order of 16 October 2000 the Organisation had entrusted the applicant with a specific task, identifying him as an inspector.
On 17 March 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the lower courts’ judgments and adopted a new one in which it rejected the applicant’s claims as unfounded. The court found that by order of 9 August 1999 he had been hired as a guard and that he had been dismissed on 1 April 2002 in accordance with the relevant labour legislation and in compliance with the order of 29 November 2001. The fact that the position had to be abolished had been confirmed by evidence and there was no reason to accept the applicant’s claims.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he did not have a fair trial.
He also complained, under the same Article, about the excessive length of proceedings.
THE LAW
On 11 April 2006 the Court received the Government’s observations on the case. On the same day the Court transmitted the observations to the applicant, who was invited to submit his written comments by 6 June 2006. At the applicant’s representative’s request, the Court also sent the relevant forms to be filled in for obtaining legal aid.
On 16 May 2006 the applicant’s representative submitted the completed forms, but he did not submit any observations.
By a registered letter of 14 November 2006 the Court pointed out to the applicant and his representative that the deadline for submitting comments had expired and warned them that, no extension of the time-limit having been requested, the Court might decide to strike the case out of its list. The applicant received that letter but did not reply.
In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols which require the continuation of the examination of the application. Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the Court’s list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıNicolas BRATZA
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy