Sidabras and Others v. Lithuania - 50421/08 56213/08 - Legal Summary

Sidabras and Others v. Lithuania - 50421/08 56213/08 - Legal Summary

The refusal to reinstate the third applicant was based on the continued existence of the KGB Act, which had previously been found contrary to the Convention. The domestic courts failed to provide adequate reasoning for not reinstating him, and the State did not demonstrate that the KGB Act was not the decisive factor. Therefore, there was a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 in respect of the third applicant.

Citation
[2015] ECHR 674
Parties
Applicant: Mr Sidabras; Applicant: Mr Džiautas; Applicant: Mr Rainys; Respondent: Lithuania
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
23 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment
Outcome
violation in respect of the third applicant; no violation in respect of the first and second applicants
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Employment Restrictions, Enforcement of ECHR Judgments
Human Rights Law Anti Discrimination Law Discrimination Employment Restrictions Enforcement of ECHR Judgments

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Sidabras

Applicant

Mr Džiautas

Applicant

Mr Rainys

Applicant

Lithuania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the continued application of the KGB Act constitutes discrimination contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to reinstate a former KGB employee violates the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to reinstate the third applicant was based on the continued existence of the KGB Act, which had previously been found contrary to the Convention. The domestic courts failed to provide adequate reasoning for not reinstating him, and the State did not demonstrate that the KGB Act was not the decisive factor. Therefore, there was a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 in respect of the third applicant.

Court Disposition

violation in respect of the third applicant; no violation in respect of the first and second applicants

Orders

  • EUR 6,000 to the third applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage
  • Claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed