Jokšas v. Lithuania - 25330/07 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 1289 (12 November 2013)

Jokšas v. Lithuania - 25330/07 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 1289 (12 November 2013)

The domestic courts failed to provide effective judicial review by not assisting the applicant in obtaining evidence regarding alleged discrimination, resulting in a violation of Article 6 § 1. There was no violation of Article 10, as the applicant's dismissal was based on reaching retirement age and not on his expressed opinions.

Citation
[2013] ECHR 1289
Parties
Applicant: Jokšas; Respondent: Lithuania
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
12 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment
Outcome
Article 6 § 1 violated; Article 10 not violated; Article 41: non-pecuniary damages awarded, pecuniary damages claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Right to a Fair Trial, Discrimination, Military Employment, Retirement Age
Human Rights Law Military Law Freedom of Expression Right to a Fair Trial Discrimination Military Employment Retirement Age

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jokšas

Applicant

Lithuania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal from the armed forces was discriminatory and violated Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The domestic courts failed to provide effective judicial review by not assisting the applicant in obtaining evidence regarding alleged discrimination, resulting in a violation of Article 6 § 1. There was no violation of Article 10, as the applicant's dismissal was based on reaching retirement age and not on his expressed opinions.

Court Disposition

Article 6 § 1 violated; Article 10 not violated; Article 41: non-pecuniary damages awarded, pecuniary damages claim dismissed.

Orders

  • EUR 6,000 awarded for non-pecuniary damage
  • Claim for pecuniary damage dismissed