THIRD SECTION
Application no. 34181/11
Victor ZAGREBELNII
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 31 May 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Victor Zagrebelnii, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Cricova.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 22 June 2010 the applicant was fined by a traffic police officer for a traffic offence. He claims that he was not given a copy of the officer’s decision and that he was not informed that failing to pay the fine within thirty days would result in the annulment of his driver’s licence for six to twelve months.
4. The applicant did not pay the fine and the traffic police asked a court to replace the fine with the licence annulment. It also asked the court to examine the case in the absence of its representative.
5. In a decision dated 13 October 2010 the Rîșcani District Court ordered the applicant’s licence annulment for six months. The parties were absent from the hearing, the court noting that each of them had been summoned.
6. According to the applicant, he was not informed of the decision of 13 October 2010. On 8 November 2010 the traffic police made a routine verification of documents and established that the applicant was driving his car, despite the annulment of his driver’s licence. He was subjected to new administrative sanctions.
7. Having thus found out about the decision of 13 October 2010, the applicant appealed against it to the Chișinău Court of Appeal. He complained, inter alia, of the failure to summon him to the court hearing, in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
8. On 2 December 2012 the Chișinău Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal as unfounded. In respect of the alleged failure to summon the applicant, the court noted that: “[the applicant] had been summoned in accordance with the law for participation at the court hearing, but had failed to appear and had not informed the court [before the hearing] of any reasons for his absence”.
9. The applicant asked the Chișinău Court of Appeal to reopen the proceedings for the reason that he had not been summoned to the first-instance court hearing. That request was dismissed on 30 December 2010.
COMPLAINTS
10. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the unlawful annulment of the driver’s licence deprived him of his means of existence, since he was a driver.
11. He also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the failure to summon him to the hearing of the first-instance court and about the incorrect decisions taken in his case, contrary to the evidence in the file.
12. He further complains of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention since he did not have effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.
13. The applicant complains of a breach of his rights guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of his inability to work during the period when his driver’s licence had been annulled and because he had to sell property in order to survive.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Was there a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant properly summoned to the hearing of the first-instance court and was the examination of the case by that court in the absence of the applicant in accordance with the provisions of Article 6?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy