CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 July 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 656/25 Silva KOLAR against Slovenia lodged on 27 December 2024 communicated on 20 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal of a public employee refusing to comply with COVID-19 related measures. The applicant was a senior officer in the Slovenian army, employed under a fixed-term contract set to expire in 2030. In 2021, during the COVID-19 crisis, she was prohibited to enter her work premises because of her refusal to comply with the COVID-19 pandemic related requirements set out in the 2021 Decree on the manner of meeting the condition of recovery, vaccination and testing to curb the spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus infections (that is a proof of recent recovery from COVID-19 infection, negative COVID-19 test result or a proof of up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination) ( Odlok o načinu izpolnjevanja pogoja prebolevnosti, cepljenja in testiranja za zajezitev širjenja okužb z virusom SARS-CoV-2 , “the 2021 Decree”) and later dismissed from her job for, according to the employer, reasons imputable to her own conduct. The applicant challenged her dismissal before the domestic courts, arguing, inter alia , that COVID-19 related requirements and her dismissal for non-compliance with them lacked legal and scientific basis and amounted to an unlawful and disproportionate interference with her constitutional rights, including her right to work and social security. She moreover invoked her right to a fair trial, effective remedy, data protection and equal treatment before the law. Her request for leave to appeal on points of law and her constitutional complaint were dismissed as not requiring an examination of the case on the merits. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to address her main arguments and evidence in violation of her right to a fair trial. She further complains about being required to comply with COVID-19 related measures as a condition for preforming her work and about her subsequent dismissal, arguing that it was unlawful, unnecessary, imposed a disproportionate burden on her and was not preceded by consideration of less restrictive alternatives. She also submits in this connection that apart from the financial impact, she felt degraded and unable to provide for herself as a result of her dismissal. Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that her employer collected and processed her personal and health data – which underpinned her dismissal – without her consent, in the absence of a proper legal basis, and in a manner that constituted a disproportionate interference with her private life. Under Article 14 of the Convention the applicant complains about discrimination on the grounds that she – as an unvaccinated person – was required to regularly test in order to have access to, inter alia , her employment, as opposed to those who were vaccinated, despite the evidence to the effect that vaccinated people were able to transmit COVID-19. The differential treatment of nonvaccinated individuals therefore lacked any justification. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention with respect to the applicant’s obligation to comply with the COVID-19 pandemic related requirements set out in the 2021 Decree as a condition for preforming her work and her ensuing dismissal?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with the above stated complaint under Article 8, and/or Article   1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, with respect to the collection and processing of her personal and health-related data by her employer? In particular, was the legal basis for collection and processing of such data sufficiently clear and foreseeable and accompanied by adequate safeguards against arbitrary interference (see, mutatis mutandis , Bykov v.   Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 81, 10 March 2009)?   4.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention?