CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 2 juin 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s945796C9 { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s63658818 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD5ABD858 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s599F5480 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4B52A9A9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s14AC500A { width:3.73pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s35008A5F { width:18.55pt; display:inline-block } .s90B2F37D { width:135.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF STRAUME v. LATVIA (Application no. 59402/14)     JUDGMENT Art 11 (+ Art 10) • Freedom of association • Domestic court failure to apply convention standards and acceptably assess employee sanctions, in response to a complaint by a trade union, imposed on its representative • Failure of domestic courts to take account of trade union element of complaint, whereby the very essence of its right to defend members’ interests was being exercised • Exceptionally harsh repercussions on applicant and further actions directed at trade union members pressuring them to distance themselves from the Trade Union complaint Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Failure to ensure rights to a public hearing and the public delivery of judgments in respect of civil proceedings brought by applicant   STRASBOURG 2 June 2022   FINAL   02/09/2022   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Straume v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary, President,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Ivana Jelić,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Kateřina Šimáčková, judges, and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   59402/14) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Lithuanian national, Ms Aušra Straume (“the applicant”), on 25   August 2014; the decision to give notice to the Latvian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to a public hearing and pronouncement; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by the European Transport Workers’ Federation, the European Trade Union Confederation, the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations, who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 3 May 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns detriments imposed on the applicant, a chairperson of a trade union board, for having addressed to the State officials overseeing a State-owned company a letter about trade union grievances and concerns, and the domestic courts’ decision to exclude the public from court hearings relating thereto. The main complaints are under Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Riga. The applicant was represented by Mr R.   Arthur, a lawyer practising in Bristol, UK. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE The applicant’s employment and employment record 5.     In 2005 the applicant started working as an air traffic control officer (hereinafter “ATCO”) for a State-owned joint stock company, Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (hereinafter “LGS”), which is overseen by the Ministry of Transport. In 2010 she also undertook ATCO instructor duties. 6 .     On 3 May 2011 the applicant was presented with a revised job description, which she signed, adding a note that read: “I have acquainted myself [with the job description] but do not agree” ( Iepazinos, bet nepiekrītu ). The subject of the disagreement concerned the regulation of the allocation of seniority grades following longer periods of absence, such as maternity leave. The matter was discussed with the applicant’s manager. The applicant signed the revised job description on 29 June 2012, after the matter had resurfaced during the internal investigation (see paragraph 21 below). Trade Union activities and the letter of 2 March 2012 7 .     On 27 October 2011 the Latvian Air Traffic Controllers’ Trade Union (hereinafter “the Trade Union”), was established and the applicant became the chairperson of its board. According to the Trade Union’s Statute and the information entered in the Enterprise Register, the chairperson of the Trade Union board had the right to represent the Trade Union individually. 8 .     On 7 November 2011 the Trade Union sought clarification from the LGS board about a recent order concerning the ATCO instructors’ work schedules with respect to their training duties. LGS responded that ATCO training was supposed to be carried out outside normal work shifts – it would be regarded as additional work and would be paid separately. In subsequent correspondence the Trade Union insisted that ATCO instructors’ training work was not being recorded and that those ATCO instructors were hence not being paid for such work. It emphasised the negative impact of such a situation, including potentially negative effects on flight safety. This correspondence was signed by the applicant in her capacity as the chairperson of the Trade Union board. 9 .     On 14 February 2012 the Trade Union held a board meeting. The minutes of the meeting, which were signed by all three Trade Union board members, stated: “It has been decided to write a complaint in the name of the Trade Union to LGS’s [sole] shareholder and to the Minister of Transport, as the board sees no other way of rectifying the working procedures of the instructors. In the view of the Trade Union board, the LGS board does not have the necessary knowledge and expertise to comprehend the problem of the poor organisation of the ATCO instructors’ work and to take the appropriate decision to resolve the problem. The complaint should also address other relevant problematic issues.” 10 .     The above-mentioned complaint, formulated in a letter dated 2   March 2012, was addressed to the Minister of Transport and the person representing the State as the sole shareholder of LGS. It was drawn up on the letterhead of the Trade Union; its text used formulations like “the Trade Union announces”, “we, the air traffic control officers”; and it was signed by the applicant next to the words: “In the name of the Latvian Air Traffic Controllers’ Trade Union, chairperson of the board”. 11 .     The letter asserted that the LGS board did not comply with the requirements set out by the relevant laws, was infringing the legal rights of the LGS employees, and was mismanaging the company’s funds. The letter then stated: “Even though the Trade Union has repeatedly attempted to find a constructive solution through negotiations, the situation has become unmanageable [ kļuvusi nevaldāma ] and seriously endangers both the quality of the provision of aeronavigation services [ aeronavigācijas pakalpojumu nodrošināšanas kvalitāti ] and LGS’s ability to grow and compete in the international market.” The letter then recounted the history of unsuccessful negotiations and collective bargaining attempts, emphasising an alleged lack of cooperation and withholding of information on the part of the LGS board. 12.     The letter continued by describing the problems regarding the ATCO training. The introductory part of this section read: “We also wish to draw your attention to other problematic issues that have not been resolved for a long time and could in the near future affect not only the sustainability of the enterprise, but also, unfortunately, flight safety in Latvian airspace. [ATCOs], and hence also the Trade Union, are very concerned in this regard and consider it to be their duty to inform higher State officials and authorities [of their concerns], so that the above-mentioned issue regarding a deterioration in flight safety and a lowering of the sustainability of the enterprise might be prevented.” 13.     The letter then relayed the information that LGS had ordered ATCO instructors to train ATCO trainees outside their scheduled working hours. This training time was not recorded and the ATCO instructors were not paid for such work. Aside from being contrary to the labour laws, this practice harmed morale, hampered possibilities to upgrade qualifications, negatively impacted the training process, and caused disappointment among ATCO trainees who had been forced (without any proper explanation) to take unpaid leave. That increased the risk that LGS would lose those employees. According to the letter, all the above-noted factors would affect flight safety in future. 14.     The letter then addressed numerous other problems concerning the organisation of ATCOs’ work, such as: discrimination with respect to the payment of bonuses (that is to say of all LGS’s employees the ATCOs received the lowest bonuses); failure to pay monthly allowances that had been agreed upon; failure to include ATCOs in the “high-risk” employee category in the light of the continuous stress that they faced; failure to categorise ATCOs working during the night time as night workers; a violation of the collective agreement by failing to insure ATCOs against the loss of their licences; failure to pay extra for carrying out the work of an absent colleague; and paying ATCOs only 75% of their agreed salary for two years following their acquisition of their permanent ATCO licences. 15.     The letter next identified specific payments that were regarded as constituting the mismanagement of funds. It also stressed the fact that the ATCOs working for LGS were among the lowest paid in Europe and that owing to problems within LGS four very experienced ATCOs had resigned. This part of the letter included the following passages: “Everything we have mentioned in this letter points to a serious risk to the enterprise and to the aeronavigation sector in Latvia.” “If the situation within the enterprise does not change, this trend [of resignations] will not only continue but will get worse. However, if the goal of the [LGS] board is to lead the enterprise to a state in which it is unable to ensure safe air traffic navigation services, thereby endangering the existence of the enterprise, this could be attained in the not so distant future.” 16 .     In conclusion, the Trade Union noted that these issues were of societal importance and that the LGS employees were prepared to discuss them publicly and, if need be, to organise strike action and to appeal to international organisations. The Trade Union then called for the LGS board to be removed. The reaction to the letter of 2 March 2012 17 .     On 9 March 2012 nineteen ATCOs, some of whom were not members of the Trade Union, wrote a letter to LGS distancing themselves from the Trade Union’s letter of 2 March 2012 . In the subsequent civil proceedings one of the signatories testified that they had been ordered to sign the letter of 9   March 2012 under the threat of suspension (see paragraph   31 below). 18 .     On 15 March 2012, in response to an enquiry made by LGS, the Civil Aviation Agency expressed concerns about the Trade Union’s “extreme pronouncements” regarding flight security. It advised LGS to assess whether the ATCOs whose statements had “contained threats about lowering the level of flight security” had complied with their terms of employment. As to LGS’s refusal to conclude agreements with ATCO instructors regarding their training duties, it noted that LGS was acting correctly, as it was “ensuring the allowed amount of monthly hours”. The Trade Union had not raised the issues that were of concern to them through the proper channels, as the Civil Aviation Agency had received no reports of “breaches in ATCOs’ employment”. 19 .     The Trade Union members in written statements addressed to the Trade Union reported that on the following day the LGS board summoned all the ATCOs who were at work that day to attend a meeting concerning the letter of 2   March 2012. The chairperson of the LGS board, D.T., emphasised that he had strong political support and asked everyone to sign a letter, addressed to him, certifying that ATCOs worked in compliance with the domestic and international legal instruments. 20 .     The Trade Union members also wrote statements of further meetings between the LGS board and the members of the Trade Union that were organised on 19, 20 and 22   March 2012. They submitted that D.T. had repeatedly emphasised that he had strong political support and asked the Trade Union members to sign statements attesting that they were ensuring that flight safety was maintained. It was indicated that signing them would be interpreted as compliance with the requirements of the post, whereas a refusal to sign would trigger an investigation and possibly suspension from duties. In addition, D.T. repeatedly asserted that the applicant was “inadequate”, that it was not possible to communicate with her, and that she was not capable of leading the Trade Union. He suggested that the applicant be removed as the Trade Union representative and be replaced with a more “adequate” person. 21 .     On 23 March 2012 LGS commenced an internal investigation with the stated purpose of establishing whether the dissemination of the statements about the potential threats to flight safety had been lawful. During the investigation, the applicant’s failure to sign the job description (see paragraph   6 above) was also reviewed. The applicant was suspended from her post for the period of the investigation. Her average salary was maintained, but she was prohibited from entering the premises of LGS. 22 .     On the same day, the Trade Union members gathered for a spontaneous meeting with the LGS board, requesting an explanation for the applicant’s suspension and the fact that only one person was being held responsible for a letter that had been sent in the name of the Trade Union. According to written statements by the Trade Union members, D.T. responded that the applicant would merely need to provide some explanations, as she had been the one who had signed the letter. Additionally, her representing the Trade Union was senseless, and her goals did not correspond with those of the Trade Union’s members. D.T. also warned against trying to obtain any help from “outside”. All issues had to be resolved within LGS, and letters such as this only harmed the Trade Union’s members. 23 .     On 27 March 2012 fifty-one ATCOs wrote a letter to D.T. expressing their support for the applicant. They requested that the applicant be reinstated in her post and called it unacceptable to confuse the applicant’s Trade Union activities with her direct duties at work. On 15 June 2012 forty-seven ATCOs wrote a letter to the Prime Minister in which they affirmed the continuance of the problems highlighted in the Trade Union’s letter of 2   March 2012. They also expressed their indignation about the retaliatory measures directed against the applicant. 24 .     On 30 March 2012 the Civil Aviation Agency ordered the applicant to undergo an evaluation of her neuropsychological state and on 14   April 2012 ordered an evaluation of her mental health. Both examinations confirmed that the applicant was healthy. On 28 April 2012 LGS lodged a complaint with the Security Police – the State’s counterintelligence and internal security service – concerning “the potential threat to flight safety in view of the Trade Union’s complaint”. On 18   June 2012, the Security Police responded that the conflict in question constituted a labour dispute and that there were therefore no grounds to examine it under the Criminal Procedure Law. 25 .     On 11 May 2012 the internal investigation was completed, with the investigation commission suggesting that the applicant be dismissed. The LGS board revoked the applicant’s salary and asked the Trade Union to agree to the applicant’s dismissal; the Trade Union refused. 26.     In June 2012 the Latvian Federation of Aviation Trade Unions organised talks aimed at achieving a friendly settlement. LGS insisted that the applicant or the Trade Union write a letter to the Ministry of Transport stating that the threats outlined in the letter of 2   March 2012 no longer existed. The applicant and the Latvian Federation of Aviation Trade Unions considered this condition unacceptable. 27 .     On 26 June 2012, following the expiry of the maximum period for which she could be suspended, LGS reinstated the applicant in her position while simultaneously ordering her to “stand idle” – that is to say to be present at the workplace every day without carrying out her direct employment duties. During that period the applicant was to receive her average wage. However, from 14 December 2012 the applicant was again refused entry to the premises of LGS and from 11 March 2013 the payment of her salary was terminated. 28 .     Over this time period LGS management demanded explanations from colleagues of the applicant who had congratulated her on her birthday or had otherwise manifested a favourable attitude towards her (for example, by giving her a lift or taking a photograph of themselves together), as confirmed by witness statements during the civil proceedings. Civil proceedings First-instance proceedings 29.     On 23 April 2012 the applicant brought civil proceedings against LGS, challenging her suspension and seeking reinstatement. In a subsequent addendum she lodged additional claims regarding, inter alia , the order for her to stand idle, the discrimination against her on the basis of her trade union activities, and the interference in the work of the Trade Union. 30 .     At the first hearing LGS lodged a counterclaim seeking the termination of the applicant’s employment. That hearing was adjourned. At the next hearing LGS requested that the case be examined in closed proceedings, as the case called for an assessment of information about the security of Latvian airspace, and misinterpreted facts had already reached the public, fuelling undesirable speculation about threats to flight safety. The applicant’s representative objected, as the case did not concern any classified information. The court granted LGS’s request on the grounds that this would allow for a “more efficient and successful administration of justice”. 31 .     During the proceedings several ATCO instructors testified that they had to carry out their training duties in their free time (that is to say outside their work shifts). They spoke of the fatigue that this arrangement caused to them and to the ATCO trainees. They also testified about the pressure placed on them by the LGS management to sign statements attesting that there existed no threat to flight safety, and to distance themselves from the Trade Union’s letter of 2 March 2012. One of the signatories of the letter of 9   March 2012 testified that they had been told to sign that letter under the threat of suspension. She agreed with the text of that letter in so far as it stated that ATCOs were not endangering flight safety. The applicant’s superiors at LGS and a witness from the Civil Aviation Agency testified that the applicant was a highly qualified employee and that they had no information about her committing any infringements at work. 32 .     On 11 March 2013 the Riga City Kurzeme District Court dismissed all the applicant’s claims and upheld LGS’s counterclaim seeking the termination of her employment. The summary judgment was pronounced in a closed hearing; the full text was made available to the parties on 21   March 2013. 33.     The court found that the applicant’s suspension and the requirement that she stand idle had been justified under section   34 of the Law on Aviation (see paragraph   51 below). With her statements about the risks to flight safety – which had been inextricably linked with her performance of her ATCO duties – the applicant had created an emergency requiring extraordinary measures. The applicant had not reported threats to flight security to the relevant institutions and had not used the opportunity, offered during the friendly-settlement negotiations, to “retract her conviction” about a threat to flight safety. A professionally substantiated opinion had to be distinguished from an “ideological conviction”, which the applicant had expressed merely for the sake of it ( pārliecības paušana pārliecības dēļ ), and it was inappropriate to invoke human rights in this instance. The applicant’s conduct could have caused the employer to be concerned that she might be unpredictable in the performance of her professional duties. 34.     As regards the applicant’s discrimination claim, the court found that a suspension based on the performance of employment duties could not be perceived as constituting a difference in treatment. The circumstances meriting the applicant’s suspension pertained only to her. The applicant had submitted no evidence that LGS had interfered with the exercise of her trade union rights. The applicant’s suspension had had no impact on her ability to represent employees. The allegation that LGS had interfered with the work of the Trade Union could not be assessed, as the applicant’s claim had been lodged only in the name of the applicant. 35.     LGS’s counterclaim seeking the termination of the applicant’s employment was based on the assertion that she, when performing her work, had acted unlawfully and had thereby lost the employer’s trust (section   101(1)(2) of the Labour Law – see paragraph   48 below). The court considered that the applicant had indeed acted unlawfully in two respects. Firstly, she had performed her employment duties without having accepted the revised job description. By adding a note expressing her disagreement with the revised job description (see paragraph   6 above) the applicant had indicated her intention not to comply with the normative acts regulating air traffic. Accordingly, the applicant had been unpredictable in her function as an ATCO, and it had been impossible to foresee whether she might significantly endanger flight safety. For that reason, the applicant had been prohibited, under section   34(1)(2) of the Law on Aviation, from carrying out her functions (see paragraph 51 below). 36.     Secondly, the applicant had acted unlawfully by knowingly disseminating untruthful information about her employer. It could not be established that the letter of 2 March 2012 had been based on a decision by the Trade Union’s General Assembly or that it reflected the majority opinion of its members. Some ATCOs had distanced themselves from the letter (see paragraph   17 above), and the other board members had not authorised the applicant to sign Trade Union letters individually. Referring to three subsequent Trade Union letters (including the letter to the Prime Minister expressing support for the applicant (see paragraph   23 above) and the letter refusing consent to the applicant’s dismissal (see paragraph   21 above)), the court concluded that Trade Union’s letters were usually signed by at least two board members or by a large number of its members. It followed that in the letter of 2 March 2012 the applicant had expressed her personal opinions and had been acting in her capacity as an ATCO, instead of in her capacity as the Trade Union representative. 37.     As to the truthfulness of the disseminated information, the court considered that the applicant had made allegations about threats to flight safety. Referring to testimony given by LGS employees asserting that there no danger was posed to flight safety, written statements from ATCOs that they were ensuring flight safety, and documents from the Civil Aviation Agency and other evidence attesting, in general terms, that aeronavigation was safe, the court concluded that the applicant’s allegations had not been confirmed. The witness testimony concerning the organisation of working time (see paragraph   31 above) was not mentioned in the judgment. 38.     The court furthermore noted that the applicant had “made serious threats with respect to the quality of the performance of her direct employment duties”. Moreover, contrary to the procedure prescribed by law, the applicant had not reported the existence of any risks. According to the assertion that the applicant had made in her letter, ATCOs had acted in breach of section   34(2) of the Law on Aviation by performing their duties while tired and without reporting their tired state to their management. If the applicant considered that there had been threats to flight safety, she had been duty bound to stop performing her employment duties. Instead, for the purpose of creating a scandal, the applicant had disseminated an “untruthful opinion”, thereby harming her employer’s interests and damaging its reputation. The applicant had been loyal to her profession but not to the enterprise that she had worked for. The fact that the applicant had written the complaint to the Ministry of Transport, without first discussing the issues in question with her employer, indicated that the applicant had been merely interested in discrediting LGS. The applicant had knowingly disseminated to third parties untruthful information about threats to flight safety with the goal of securing socio-economic benefits for herself. Given those circumstances, the employer could justifiably have lost its trust in the applicant. Appeal proceedings 39 .     On 8 April 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Riga Regional Court. The Free Trade Union Confederation of Latvia requested that the case be examined in a public hearing. LGS requested a closed hearing on the grounds that the case concerned rules governing the security of airspace and the possible violations of those rules. The appellate court granted LGS’s request, referring to section   11(3)(1) of the Civil Procedure Law, which allows the exclusion of the public from a courtroom for the protection of State or commercial secrets. During the appeal hearing a picket organised by the Latvian Federation of Aviation Trade Unions was held outside the courthouse with the participation of members of the Free Trade Union Confederation of Latvia and the Lithuanian trade union Solidarumas . 40 .     In its judgment of 20 June 2013, the operative part of which was pronounced publicly, the Riga Regional Court endorsed the findings and the reasoning of the first-instance court. It added that there was no doubt that the applicant had signed the letter of 2   March 2012 herself; hence, her objection to the fact that engaging in a trade union activity had been deemed to constitute a personal action on her part was unfounded. It would have been unacceptable to prevent the employer from taking measures against the applicant merely on the grounds that the letter stated that it had been written in the name of the Trade Union. Employees’ material or social guarantees could not be invoked as grounds for not complying with direct employment duties. 41.     The appeal court considered it immaterial that the ATCOs who had distanced themselves from the letter of 2   March 2012 had not been members of the Trade Union (see paragraph 17 above). Their letter of 9   March 2012 had confirmed that ATCOs’ professional training and experience ensured the necessary level of flight safety. The applicant’s argument that ATCOs had been intimidated into signing that letter under the threat of suspension was unfounded, as the witness had testified that she had never endangered air traffic (see paragraph   31 above). No evidence had been adduced confirming that flight security was endangered or that the situation in LGS was out of control. The appeal court upheld the first-instance court’s finding that the applicant had “ made serious threats with respect to the quality of the performance of her direct employment duties” and had disseminated an “untruthful opinion” with the goal of destabilising LGS and securing socio ‑ economic benefits for herself. Appeal on points of law proceedings 42 .     On 5 August 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. On 28   February 2014, after examining the case in written proceedings, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Riga Regional Court. With respect to the applicant’s argument that her statements had not contained any threats, the Supreme Court responded that the question of whether or not the applicant had made a threat could not be understood merely as her having threatened not to fulfil duties with regard to flight safety but also as her having made statements that the institution carrying out such tasks was not capable of functioning and, hence, that Latvian airspace was not safe. Other aspects relevant to the dispute 43.     On 10 January 2012 an internal audit of LGS identified nine areas of non-compliance with regulations in the field of air traffic control, including the training of ATCOs. It also concluded that the internal bodies of LGS had disagreements regarding their respective areas of responsibility, and that the applicable legal instruments and the internal mechanism for resolving such differences were not functioning. 44.     On 24 May 2012 the European Transport Workers’ Federation wrote to the Prime Minister that the actions of LGS had contravened EU   Directive   2003/42/EC on occurrence reporting in civil aviation, as well as the Law on Trade Unions and the Labour Law. It requested the Prime Minister to halt the disciplinary investigation against the applicant and to revoke her suspension. On 11 April 2013 it wrote to the LGS board that the treatment of the applicant, as well as that of the other employees who had been intimidated into signing various statements, had been incompatible with trade union freedoms and autonomy and had contravened International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No.   135. On 22   April 2013 the Latvian Federation of Aviation Trade Unions expressed similar concerns to the LGS board. 45.     On 17 January 2013 the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport, the Civil Aviation Agency, and the LGS board expressing serious concerns about compliance with the principles of a “just culture” in the light of the treatment of individual ATCOs who had raised safety concerns. On 14   March 2014 the International Transport Workers’ Federation and the European Transport Workers’ Federation wrote a joint letter to the President of Latvia expressing grave concerns about the ruling of the first-instance court and, notably, its anti-union bias. They emphasised the fact that the complaint of 2 March 2012 had been sent by the applicant as the chairperson of the board of, and on behalf of, the Trade Union. It had raised problematic issues within LGS relating to social dialogue and the main issues highlighted had concerned training, rest times and fatigue. The ruling contradicted the principles of freedom of association and the legal protection of trade union representatives, as well as ILO Conventions No.   87,   98,   and   135 and EU   Directive   2003/42/EC. 46.     On 1 February 2013 the applicant was re-elected as the chairperson of the Trade Union board. 47 .     On 27 June 2014 the State Labour Inspectorate concluded that LGS had committed an administrative offence by not complying with the Labour Law in respect of overtime work – inter alia , by exceeding the lawful limits for ATCO overtime work and by failing to properly record employees’ working hours. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK Domestic law 48 .     Section 101(1)(2) of the Labour Law authorises an employer to dismiss an employee if he or she, when carrying out his or her work, has acted unlawfully and has thereby lost the employer’s trust. 49.     Section 110(1) of the Labour Law provides that an employer cannot dismiss an employee who is a member of a trade union without the trade union’s prior agreement. Section 110(4) further specifies that if the trade union does not agree with the dismissal, the employer may, within one month of receiving the trade union’s response, bring proceedings in a court seeking termination. 50 .     Section 31(1) of the Labour Law provides for a prescription period of two years for all claims emanating from labour relationships, unless otherwise provided for by law. Sections 34, 60 and 95(2) specify a three-month prescription period with respect to various discrimination claims. 51 .     Section 34(1)(2) of the Law on Aviation, as worded at the relevant time, provided that a civil aviation specialist was prohibited from performing his or her functions if he or she was sick, tired or could not perform his or her functions because of other circumstances, in order to guarantee flight safety or civil aviation security. 52.     Section 44 of the Law on Associations and Foundations, which at the relevant time also regulated the representation of the trade unions, provides that members of the board represent the association jointly, unless otherwise provided in the Statute. 53 .     Section 11(3)(1) of the Civil Procedure Law provides that on the basis of a reasoned request by a party to a case or at the discretion of the court, a hearing (or a part thereof) may be closed to the public if this is necessary to protect a State secret or a commercial secret. Section 11(3)(5) provides that a closed hearing may also be held in the interests of the administration of justice. Section   11(8) provides that in cases that have been examined in closed hearings the operative part of the judgment must be pronounced publicly. 54 .     With respect to cases that have been examined in closed hearings, section 28 2 (2) of the Law on the Judiciary provides that the introductory and the operative parts of the judgment that have been pronounced publicly must be available to the public. Under sections 28 4 (1) and 28 4 (2), the case file in such cases shall be available only to the parties to the case and other specifically listed persons for twenty years; after this period has elapsed the case file will become available as “restricted information”. International law and materials 55.     Article 1 of ILO Convention No. 98 on the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and to Bargain Collectively (adopted in   1949 and ratified by Latvia on 27 January 1992), in its relevant part, reads: “1. Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment. 2. Such protection shall apply more particularly in respect of acts calculated to... (b) cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership or because of participation in union activities outside working hours or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours.” 56 .     Article 1 of ILO Convention No. 135 on Worker’s Representatives (adopted in 1971 and ratified by Latvia on 27 January 1992) reads: “Workers’ representatives in the undertaking shall enjoy effective protection against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status or activities as a workers’ representative or on union membership or participation in union activities, in so far as they act in conformity with existing laws or collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements.” 57.     A report by the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations entitled “Giving globalisation a human face” (issued during the 101st session of the International Labour Conference, 2012) reads: “59.     ... The ILO supervisory bodies have since unceasingly stressed the interdependence between civil liberties and trade union rights, emphasizing that a truly free and independent trade union movement can only develop in a climate free from violence, pressure and threats of any kind against the leaders and members of such organizations. ... 173. Under the terms of the first two Articles of Convention No.   98, States are under the obligation to take specific measures to ensure both: (i) the adequate protection of workers against any acts of anti-union discrimination both at the time of taking up employment and in the course of employment, including at the time of the termination of the employment relationship, and covering ‘acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment’ (dismissal, transfer, demotion and other prejudicial acts); and (ii) adequate protection for workers’ and employers’ organizations against ‘any acts of interference by each other’ in their establishment, functioning or administration.” 58 .     An ILO document entitled “Freedom of Association: compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, International Labour Office” (Geneva, 6th edition, 2018), reads: “586. Workers and their organizations should have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom and the latter should have the right to put forward claims on their behalf. ... 719. Employers’ and workers’ organizations must be allowed to conduct their activities in a climate that is free from pressure, intimidation, harassment, threats or efforts to discredit them or their leaders... 720. Professional organizations of workers and employers should under no circumstances be subjected to retaliatory measures for having exercised their rights arising from ILO instruments on freedom of association... 731. The exercise of trade union rights might at times entail criticisms of the authorities of public employer institutions and/or of socio-economic conditions of concern to trade unions and their members. ... 737. Denouncing to the competent authorities insufficient occupational safety and health measures is in fact a legitimate trade union activity and a workers’ right which should be guaranteed by law. ... 1075. No person should be dismissed or prejudiced in employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, and it is important to forbid and penalize in practice all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment. ... 1078. Since inadequate safeguards against acts of anti-union discrimination, in particular against dismissals, may lead to the actual disappearance of trade unions composed only of workers in an undertaking, additional measures should be taken to ensure fuller protection for leaders of all organizations, and delegates and members of trade unions, against any discriminatory acts. ... 1131. Especially at the initial stages of unionization in a workplace, dismissal of trade union representatives might fatally compromise incipient attempts at exercising the right to organize, as it not only deprives the workers of their representatives, but also has an intimidating effect on other workers who could have envisaged assuming trade union functions or simply join the union. ... 1138. The government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination and it must ensure that complaints of anti-union discrimination are examined in the framework of national procedures which should be prompt, impartial and considered as such by the parties concerned. ... 1175. If the judicial authority – or an independent competent body – determines that reinstatement of trade union members is not possible for objective and compelling reasons, adequate compensation should be awarded to remedy all damages suffered and prevent any repetition of such acts in the future, so as to constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction against acts of anti-union discrimination ...” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION read in the light of Article 10 59.     Invoking Articles 6, 8, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant complained of the negative consequences that she had suffered owing to the letter she had addressed to the State officials overseeing a State-owned company in her capacity as the chairperson of the Trade Union board. In her subsequent observations she argued that this complaint should be examined under Article 11, read in the light of Article 10. Those provisions read as follows: Article 10 “1.     Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2.     The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” Article 11 “ 1.     Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2.     No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.” Admissibility 60.     The Government submitted that when signing the letter, the applicant had acted in a personal capa