CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 août 2012

.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 } .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. 155 August-September 2012 I.B. v. Greece (dec.) - 552/10 Decision 28.8.2012 [Section I] Article 14 Discrimination Dismissal of HIV positive employee upheld by Court of Cassation in order to avoid tensions in the workplace: admissible   Facts – The applicant, who was HIV-positive, was dismissed following complaints by co-workers unwilling to work with him. In May 2005 the first-instance court found that he had been dismissed illegally. The employer lodged an appeal, which was rejected. In March 2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal, finding that the termination of an employment contract was not abusive if it was justified in the employer’s interests. Law – Article   14 in conjunction with Article   8: The applicant complained that his dismissal was discriminatory and based on his co-workers’ prejudice regarding his HIV status, and that the Court of Cassation’s argument that his dismissal was justified by the need to maintain a good atmosphere at work could not serve as a basis for differential treatment contrary to Article   14. Furthermore, the Court of Cassation had clearly been called upon to rule primarily on the employer’s appeal on points that had been examined by the lower courts, that is to say the reasons for and the effects of the applicant’s dismissal. The Court of Cassation had quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal, finding that the applicant’s dismissal was justified by the employer’s concern to restore a peaceful atmosphere in the workplace in the face of the applicant’s co-workers’ concern about his HIV status, which had caused them to demand his dismissal. The complaints submitted to the Court under Article   8 had thus been raised in substance before the domestic courts. Conclusion : admissible (unanimously).   © 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