CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 janvier 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 60 January 2004 Rainys and Gasparavičius v. Lithuania (dec.) - 70665/01 and 74345/01 Decision 22.1.2004 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Two former KGB officers subject to employment restrictions under domestic Act: admissible Facts : The two applicants occupied posts with the KGB until 1991. In accordance with a law laying down employment restrictions for former employees of the KGB, the first applicant, who had become a lawyer in a private telecommunications company, was dismissed from his job in 2000. The second applicant, who was working as a barrister, was disbarred in 2001. They both unsuccessfully instituted administrative actions against their dismissals. The second applicant acknowledged he had worked for the KGB but argued that the employment restrictions should not have applied to him as he had only been involved in criminal (not political) investigations whilst at the KGB. The Regional Administrative Court, in proceedings which were not public, rejected his claim because he had not stopped working with the KGB immediately after Lithuania’s independence, which was a condition for the non-application of the restrictions. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment in a public hearing. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 (fair hearing): This article was applicable under its “civil” head (not criminal, as alleged by the applicants) as both had lost their jobs in the aftermath of the proceedings. However, the applicants had been afforded ample opportunity to state their cases and contest the evidence they considered false: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 2 and 6 § 3: In view of the civil, not criminal, nature of the impugned proceedings, the presumption of innocence and other defence rights under these provisions could not be invoked: incompatible ratione materiae . Admissible under Articles 8 and 10, alone and in conjunction with Article 14. [N.B. The case is almost identical to Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania , 55480/00, except that it concerns dismissals in the private sector (and not of public officials).]   © 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