CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 juin 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 21 June 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 59764/13 Violeta AŽUKAITIENĖ against Lithuania lodged on 18 September 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE As of 2002 the applicant worked as the Head of Internal Audit at the Directorate General of State Forests, an institution which is subordinate to the Ministry of the Environment. She had no history of disciplinary violations. In February 2008 the applicant produced an audit report regarding alleged mismanagement and corruption at the Directorate. She sent that report to the Ministry of the Environment, which later dismissed the applicant’s conclusions as unfounded. The applicant was subsequently reprimanded twice and then dismissed from her job by the Director. She challenged her dismissal and in October 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court changed the disciplinary penalty to a strict reprimand and ordered the applicant’s reinstatement. Once reinstated to her previous duties, within one month the applicant asked to be dismissed from her job at her own request. Her request was granted. The applicant then moved to the United Kingdom but in 2011 sued the State, represented by the Ministry of the Environment, for damages. The applicant argued that she had been forced to resign from her post because of harassment and pressure. She stated that such behaviour by the Director, which was also condoned by the Ministry of the Environment, forced her to leave Lithuania. The applicant also asseverated that, in February 2008, when she had voiced suspicions about financial mismanagement, her work computer, which contained not only audit related information but also personal information such as her correspondence, had been taken away from her office without her knowledge. The computer was later returned, but with a different hard drive. All this caused her humiliation and anxiety. By a final decision of 11   April 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages. It held that there had been no causal link between the actions of the Ministry of Environment, when handling the applicant’s complaints, including about harassment, and her choice to leave her job. Neither the first instance, nor the Supreme Administrative Court made any observations regarding the seizure of the applicant’s work computer and her personal data. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Perez v. France [GC], no.   47287/99, §   80, ECHR   2004 ‑ I; also see, more recently, Carmel Saliba v. Malta , no.   24221/13, §§   64-67, 29   November 2016)? The Court refers to the applicant’s grievance that the domestic courts failed to provide reasoning regarding her complaint about the seizure of her work computer and personal data therein.   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life and correspondence (see Bărbulescu v.   Romania [GC], no.   61496/08, §§   69-81, ECHR   2017 (extracts); also see, more recently, Benedik v. Slovenia , no. 62357/14, §§   100 and 101, 24   April 2018)? The Court refers to the applicant’s complaint about the seizure of her work computer, which contained her correspondence, without her knowledge. The applicant is requested to provide further and specific details regarding the content of the information seized.   In the affirmative, has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see Libert v. France , no. 588/13, §§ 40 and 41, ECHR 2018 (not yet final))?