THIRD SECTION
Application no. 32481/09
Iurie APOSTOLACHI
against Moldova
lodged on 4 June 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Iurie Apostolachi, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Bender. He is represented before the Court by Mr F. Nagacevschi, a lawyer practising in Chişinău.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
At the time of the events the applicant was employed by the State Agency responsible for the administration of forests.
On 20 March 2008 the applicant was dismissed on the ground that he had breached the rules as set in the employment contract. The applicant disagreed and challenged in courts the order concerning his dismissal.
On 20 June 2008 the Centru District Court found in favour of the applicant on the ground that contrary to the labour law, he had been dismissed while being on sick leave. The court also found that contrary to the labour law, the applicant had not been asked to give a written explanation before his dismissal and the order concerning his dismissal did not specify what exactly was imputed to him.
On 4 September 2008 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant’s former employer and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
On 17 December 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice examined the appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant’s former employer in a hearing to which the applicant had not been summoned to appear. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and reversed the judgments of the first two courts. In so doing the Supreme Court referred to the merits of the case and concluded that the deed imputed to the applicant (absence for several days from work) was serious enough to justify his dismissal. The judgment of the Supreme Court was final.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were not fair because he had not been summoned for the hearing before the Supreme Court of Justice and because in reversing the first two judgments the Supreme Court did not give detailed reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the lower courts.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?