of a loss of reputation which is the foreseeable consequence of one’s own actions, such as, for example, the commission of a criminal offence (see   Axel Springer AG , cited above, § 83, and Sidabras

He relied on the Court’s judgments concerning post-Communist lustration: Sidabras and Džiautas v.   Lithuania (nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, ECHR 2004 ‑ VIII); Turek v.   Slovakia (no.

It has thus reiterated that “private life” is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition (see Schüth , cited above, §   53, and Sidabras and Džiautas v.

Secondly, almost two decades have elapsed since Hungary’s transition to pluralism and the country has proved to be a stable democracy (see, in this connection, Sidabras and Džiautas v.

activities and creating serious difficulties for him in terms of earning his living might have, in certain circumstances, repercussions on the enjoyment of his private life (see, mutatis mutandis , Sidabras

For Article 14 to become applicable, it suffices that the facts of a case fall within the ambit of another substantive provision of the Convention or its Protocols (see Sidabras and Džiautas v.

  Slovakia , no. 57986/00, § 110, ECHR 2006 ‑ II; and Sidabras and Others v. Lithuania , nos. 50421/08 and 56213/08, § 49, 23 June 2015).

Here the Court wishes to stress that the obligation to reinstate does not preclude future dismissal on another, justified ground unrelated to the original dismissal (see, mutatis mutandis , Sidabras and

complain of a loss of reputation that is the foreseeable consequence of one’s own actions, such as, for example, the commission of a criminal offence (see Axel Springer AG , cited above, § 83, and Sidabras

Russia , nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 95, ECHR 2003 ‑ IX (extracts); Sidabras and   Džiautas v.

complain of a loss of reputation which is the foreseeable consequence of one’s own actions, such as, for example, the commission of a criminal offence (see Axel Springer AG, cited above , § 83, and Sidabras

complain of a loss of reputation which is the foreseeable consequence of one’s own actions such as, for example, the commission of a criminal offence (see, inter alia , Gillberg [GC], cited above, § 67; Sidabras

  41561/07 and 20972/08, §   67, 18   October 2011, and Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania , nos.   55480/00 and   59330/00, §   103, CEDH 2004-VIII).

Norway , no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009; and Sidabras and   Džiautas v. Lithuania , nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, §   49, ECHR   2004 ‑ VIII). 59.

A far-reaching ban on taking up private ‑ sector employment has also been found to affect “private life” (see Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania , nos.

  29515/95, ECHR 1999 ‑ I; and Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania , nos.   55480/00 and 59330/00, ECHR 2004 ‑ VIII).

of a loss of reputation which is the foreseeable consequence of one’s own actions, such as, for example, the commission of a criminal offence (see Axel Springer AG , cited above, §   83, and Sidabras

  28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009, and Sidabras and   Džiautas v. Lithuania , nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, §   49, ECHR   2004 ‑ VIII). 61.

In this connection the Court refers to its findings made in the cases of Sidabras and Džiautas   v. Lithuania (nos.

xa0; Moreover, the Court has generally refused to consider that the criminal head of Article   6 is applicable to cases of dismissal and employment restrictions affecting former KGB agents (see Sidabras