CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } Communicated on 13 January 2020 Published on 3 February 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31876/15 Renārs TUČS against Latvia lodged on 20 June 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns an allegation that the domestic courts had allowed the procedures designed to protect members of the trade union to be circumvented. The company the applicant worked for transferred all of its employees to the mother company, except for the applicant and L.P. – the only two employees belonging to a trade union. In practice, they continued working alongside their colleagues. Approximately a year later, the applicant and L.P. were informed that the daughter company was being liquidated and their employment would be terminated. They brought civil proceedings against both companies arguing that the official procedure for dismissing members of trade unions was being circumvented. On 28 October 2013 the appellate court dismissed the applicant’s claim. By a final decision of 23 December 2014 the Supreme Court upheld that judgment. However, in L.P.’s case a similar judgment was revoked by the Supreme Court on 15 April 2015 for the failure to respond to the arguments invoked. Following that L.P.’s case was settled. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1, Article 11 and Article 14 of the Convention about the lack of a fair trial and the lack of the necessary protection of his freedom of association and protection against the discrimination. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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? In particular, (a) did the domestic courts examine all the relevant arguments invoked by the applicant; (b) did they state adequate reasons for their judgments in response to those arguments and (c) is the reasoning given in the applicant’s case compatible with principles formulated by the Supreme Court in the judgment of 15 April 2015?   2.     Has the respondent State complied with its positive obligations under Article 11 of the Convention to secure the applicant’s rights as a trade union member?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his trade union membership, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 11?