CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 juin 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 12 July 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 11643/20 Audronė ISPIRYAN against Lithuania lodged on 18 February 2020 communicated on 21 June 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE As of 2014 the applicant was the director of a public school. In 2017 a pre-trial investigation was opened, she was suspected of bribery. By court order, the applicant was temporarily removed from her post. The Šiauliai city municipality, who was the applicant’s employer, discussed the applicant’s situation at the meetings of 2 and 4 October 2018, where views were expressed that the applicant’s removal from her post which lasted for more than a year and a half meant that the charges against her were serious and having basis. During the applicant’s suspension the school had been without the manager, and the charges against the applicant reflected badly on the school’s image. In the municipal council’s view, it had lost trust in the applicant. For loss of trust, it was sufficient that actions having features of a crime had been committed, and it was not necessary to prove the applicant’s guilt. On 4   October 2018 the Šiauliai city municipal council took the decision to dismiss the applicant from her post for having lost the employer’s trust. On 24 October 2018 the pre-trial investigation was terminated in respect of the applicant and the following day the case was transferred for trial. Afterwards, the applicant started court proceedings for reinstatement and damages. She argued that her losing the job before the criminal proceedings were terminated was in breach of the right to presumption of innocence, and that she had been discriminated as compared to two other school directors, who were in the same situation as the applicant, but have not been dismissed. The civil claim was rejected by the Šiauliai District Court on 16   April 2019 and the Šiauliai Regional Court on 13   August 2019. The courts considered that the employer’s right to dismiss a person from the post such as that of the applicant was absolute and unlimited. The courts also considered that the Šiauliai city municipal council had weighty reason why it had lost trust in the applicant. The court of appeal considered it unnecessary to examine the applicant’s argument regarding the presumption of innocence. It was likewise unnecessary to examine the discrimination complaint, because the civil case did not concern lawfulness of possible dismissal of other school directors. By a ruling of 14   November 2019 the Supreme Court refused to accept the applicant’s appeal on points of law for examination. Under Article   6 §   2 of the Convention the applicant complains that her dismissal, while the criminal investigation had been pending, breached her right to presumption of innocence. Under Article   14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article   6   §   2, the applicant further complains that no such strict measures as dismissal were applied in respect of two other school directors and a school accountant. The applicant submits that she had been discriminated on the basis of her husband’s ethnicity. Lastly, the applicant complains that due to the domestic courts’ choice not to answer her arguments about presumption of innocence and discrimination she had been denied a fair hearing in breach of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil claim regarding her dismissal, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no.   43395/09, §   170, ECHR 2017 (extracts))?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to presumption of innocence, under Article   6 §   2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   25424/09, §   102, ECHR 2013, and the case-law cited therein; see also Ismoilov and Others v. Russia , no.   2947/06, §   161 in fine , 24   April 2008, and Kožemiakina v. Lithuania , no.   231/15, §   50, 2   October 2018)? The Court refers to the applicant’s grievance that she has been dismissed from her job because of the criminal proceedings which had not yet been terminated.   The applicant is requested to provide transcripts, with translation to one of the Court’s official languages – English or French, of the Šiauliai municipal committee’s hearing of 2   October 2018 and of the Šiauliai municipal council’s hearing of 4   October 2018, wherein the matter of the applicant’s dismissal was discussed.   The parties are requested to provide the latest information regarding the status of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article   6 §   2 (see, mutatis mutandis , Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania , nos.   55480/00 and 59330/00, §§   38 and 39, ECHR 2004‑VIII)? Have the courts given due examination to the applicant’s complaint that he has been subjected to difference in treatment on the basis of her husband’s ethnicity?   The parties are requested to provide information whether the other school directors and an accountant who had been subject to analogous criminal proceedings have been dismissed from their posts, and also indicate the outcome of those other criminal proceedings.