CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 juin 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 109 June 2008 Siveri and Chiellini v. Italy (dec.) - 13148/04 Decision 3.6.2008 [Section II] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Dismissal of regional public servants for failing to declare their membership of an association: inadmissible   Article 14 Discrimination Dismissal of regional public servants for failing to declare their membership of an association: inadmissible   In 1994 the applicants, who were respectively members of a regional commission and council, were dismissed on the basis of a regional law requiring persons appointed to such posts to declare whether they belonged to any associations which engaged, openly or de facto , in activities of a political, cultural, social, welfare or economic nature. The first applicant had neglected to send the relevant documents, and the second had omitted to mention that he was a member of a Masonic lodge. The applicants challenged their dismissal. By a judgment of 1997 the administrative court dismissed their appeals. In 2003 the Council of State dismissed their appeals. Inadmissible under Article 11   – It could be assumed that there had been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of association as the applicants alleged that declaring their membership of a Masonic lodge would have exposed them to social disapproval that might adversely affect their careers and private lives. As to the legitimate aims pursued, the findings in the Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani [GOI] v. Italy(no.   1) (no.   35972/97, CEDH   2001‑VIII) and (no.   2) (no. 26740/02, 31 May 2007), where the Court found that the ban on the appointment of freemasons to public office and the obligation for candidates to such posts to declare whether they were freemasons pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security and preventing disorder, also applied to this case. The instant case differed from GOI v. Italy(no.   1) , however, in that the applicants were already in post and their membership of a Masonic lodge was not in itself grounds for dismissal. Further, the impugned law involved a simple duty of transparency, the declaration of membership of an association being intended to inform the public of possible conflicts of interest affecting public servants. It was true that dismissal was the automatic legal consequence of the applicants’ conduct, but in relations between the authorities and certain public servants States were not expected to provide for adjustable penalties to suit the particular circumstances of each case. The sanction imposed on the applicants had not been disproportionate. They had also had the benefit of certain procedural guarantees: manifestly ill-founded . Inadmissible under Article 14   – The applicants considered that they had been discriminated against either because of the content of the regional laws or because of how they were applied in practice. The instant case also differed from GOI v. Italy(no. 2) , as the obligation to make the declaration applied to a very large number of associations, not only to freemasons. The Court pointed out that the possibility for a region to regulate certain matters differently from other regions or central government was a consequence of regional self-government. The situation of the applicants, who had been appointed by the authorities and were answerable to them, differed from that of persons elected to office, who were answerable to public opinion for their conduct in the course of their duties: manifestly ill-founded .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes