CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 6 April 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 21240/16 Ion BUSUIOC against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 11 April 2016 communicated on 19 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was accused of careless driving, which resulted in the death of a person. During the criminal proceedings, he was suspended from his position of a judge. Since that position was incompatible with most other paid activities, he could not earn his living. He therefore asked to be dismissed from his position, which was accepted by the Superior Council of Magistrates (“the SCM”), but was refused by the President. After some 20   months since his suspension without any pay, the applicant was dismissed by Presidential decree on the basis of his final criminal conviction. The applicant complains under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention that he was prevented for almost two years from finding a job in the private sector and earning his living. He did not have effective means to obtain redress of the breach of his rights. The case raises issues under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, was the applicant prevented during his suspension from his function from developing relationships with those around him in a professional context (see D.M.T. and D.K.I. v. Bulgaria , no.   29476/06, §§ 98-115, 24 July 2012)?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention ( D.M.T. and D.K.I. , cited above, §§ 124-127)?