CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 avril 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   293 7.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ŽICKUS v. LITHUANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Žičkus v. Lithuania (application no. 26652/02).   The Court held by four votes to three that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (protection of private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of Mr Žičkus being prevented from seeking employment in the private sector because he had collaborated with the special security services (KGB) during the communist era.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held, by four votes to three, that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage. Mr Žičkus was awarded 3,432   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Egidijus Žičkus, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in the Vilnius area (Lithuania). He received various state awards in the 1990s in recognition of his contribution to the independence of Lithuania and the Lithuanian army.   The case concerned his complaint that, publicly denounced a former secret KGB collaborator, he lost his job and is now prevented from working in the private sector.   In September 2000, a special governmental commission, responsible under a domestic law introduced in January 2000 for assessing the activities of those who had collaborated with the KGB, found that Mr Žičkus had helped the KGB during the communist era. That information was published in the “Official Gazette” in July 2001. As a result, the same month, he was dismissed from his post in human resources at the Ministry of the Interior, the reason given being the published information in respect of his past activities. He brought proceedings before the administrative courts seeking to have the conclusions of the governmental commission as regards his KGB involvement annulled, but his claim was dismissed.   Following those domestic court decisions, Mr Žičkus also alleges that he was disbarred from practising as a barrister.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 July 2002 and was examined together as to its admissibility and merits.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens, (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), judges, and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), Mr Žičkus complained that, as a result of the law on the basis of which it was publicly announced that he had been a KGB collaborator, he lost his job and his private sector employment prospects have been restricted ever since.   Decision of the Court   The Court recalled that the requirement of loyalty to the State was an inherent condition of being employed as a civil servant by the State and emphasised that State-imposed restrictions on one’s opportunities to find employment in the private sector, because of lack of loyalty to the State, could not be justified under the Convention in the same manner as restrictions in the public service.   In particular, the domestic law applied in Mr Žičkus’s case had had a number of drawbacks: it had not differentiated between different levels of former involvement with the KGB and had come into force at least a decade after he had ceased collaborating with the KGB. In addition, there had been nothing in the case file to indicate that Mr Žičkus would have posed an on-going danger to national security had he been employed in some areas of the private sector after 2000. Finally, the Lithuanian authorities had themselves recognised Mr   Žičkus’s loyalty to the country by bestowing State awards upon him. The Court concluded that there had, therefore, been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article   8 as a result of Mr Žičkus having effectively been banned from seeking employment in various branches of the private sector.     Judges Tulkens, Cabral Barreto and Zagrebelsky expressed a joint partly dissenting opinion concerning the question of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and judges Jočienė, Tsotsoria and Sajó expressed a dissenting opinion, all of which are annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.