CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mai 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 17 June 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 44435/19 Iulian GHERCĂ against Romania lodged on 5 August 2019 communicated on 28 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative proceedings in relation to the applicant’s removal from the position of public manager at the Neamt County Museum to which he was appointed for a period of five years based on a contract concluded with the local authorities on 25 August 2016. Following a first evaluation of the activity performed by the applicant for the first five months, the local administrative authorities decided the early termination of the contract due to the unsatisfactory grade obtained by him. The applicant’s challenge against the dismissal decision and the evaluation report was allowed by a judgment of 29 January 2018 of the Neamț County Court. The county court annulled the impugned decision and ordered the applicant’s reinstatement in his previous position. The county court stated that the members of the evaluation committee had given grades without providing reasons in their support, which was tantamount to a lack of reasoning of the evaluation report, as an administrative act, and therefore rendered it void. Both parties lodged appeals on points of law. By a final decision delivered on 8 February 2019 and served on the applicant on 5 March 2019, the Bacău Court of Appeal allowed the local authorities’ appeal and dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. In so deciding, the appeal court stated that the impugned administrative acts were lawful and that the administrative courts did not have jurisdiction to review the assessment made by the evaluation committee. The applicant complains under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention of a lack of efficient access to a court. In particular, he alleges that the appeal court refused to scrutinise the validity of the assessment made by the evaluation committee which had prompted his dismissal and that it did not properly address important arguments advanced by him nor rule on his claim in respect of moral damages. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the administrative proceedings in the present case (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-II)? 2.     If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Bacau Court of Appeal exercise “sufficient jurisdiction” or provided “sufficient review” in the administrative proceedings (see Fazliyski v. Bulgaria , no. 40908/05, § 59, 16 April 2013 and Sigma Radio Television Ltd c. Chypre , nos. 32181/04 et 35122/05, §§ 152 and 157, 21 July 2011) before it concerning the applicant’s dismissal?