CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 juillet 2020

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 17 July 2020 Published on 3 August 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 14615/18 Niculina PISMIȘ against Romania lodged on 20 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the conflicting case-law of the Bucharest Court of Appeal which delivered the final decisions in litigations regarding the granting of interest and index – linked salary arrears to the applicant and other claimants in a similar situation as herself. The final decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal delivered on 11   October 2017 dismissed the applicant’s claims concerning the interest salary arrears; in parallel proceedings lodged by the applicant’s colleagues, the same claim was allowed by the same appellate court.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant had a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as similar actions before the same appellate court, concerning the claims to be granted interest on their salary arrears at the same time with having the latter index-linked, had different outcomes? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty, as developed in the Court’s case-law in the interpretation of Article 6 of the Convention (see for instance Tudor Tudor v. Romania , no. 21911/03, 24 March 2009; and Albu and Others v. Romania , nos. 34796/09 and 63 others, 10 May 2012), complied with by the domestic courts?   2.     Has the alleged inconsistent approach taken by the domestic courts in the applicant’s case, as opposed to other similar cases, determined an infringement of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in particular to her alleged right to obtain interest on her salary arrears, as claimed before the domestic courts?