CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 janvier 2022

.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 } .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 } Published on 31 January 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 60943/15 Aliona ROSCA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 2 December 2015 communicated on 12 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s right under Article 8 of the Convention (the applicant is a former judge) that the domestic courts failed to protect her right to reputation against the unconfirmed accusations of professional misconduct made by N.C., who was at the relevant time the President of the Superior Council of Magistrates, and widely reflected in the mass-media. The final domestic decision was given by the Supreme Court of Justice on 3 June 2015. The applicant complains that the reasons adduced by the national courts were not relevant and sufficient, that the courts relied on information which had not been confirmed in the course of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and ignored evidence to the contrary, and that therefore did not strike a fair balance between the two conflicting values, notably her right to respect for private life, and the respondent party’s freedom of expression.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see, Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 98-99, 25 September 2018, Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 77, 27   June 2017, and Petrenco v. Moldova , no. 20928/05, §§ 52-56, 30   March 2010) ?