PDF

Volodymyr  DONETS,

Judge, the Kyiv District Administrative Court

APPLICATION OF THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ECTHR) IN PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTES, DISMISSAL FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE

The article is devoted to the case law of the ECtHR as of the violation of the applicants’ labor rights and the application of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights to such legal relations. Specific examples are focused on the Court’s decisions on the applicability of certain provisions of the Convention to the controversial relationship, determination of interference existence with one or another person’s right and decision on the justification for such interference, which results in the presence or absence of a violation. The cases presented in the case law show how the rights are guaranteed by the Convention, at first glance, which are not related to labor rights, can be applied to such relationships and used by administrative courts in disputes resolution regarding public service relations.

The precedents of the Court set out in the article demonstrate the application of Articles 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and Article 1 of the Protocol 1 to the Convention in cases of labor rights violations of the applicants. There are examples, as in some cases, in similar legal relationships, the Court finds the complaint admissible, and in others not. Such issues as justification of interference, compliance with the criteria of the “three-part test” are observed. It is emphasized the importance of understanding of such concepts as the interference was “in accordance with the law”; “met the legitimate goal”, “was necessary in a democratic society”, the state’s compliance with positive commitments.

The author examines the practical application of the ECtHR case law in disputes concerning legal relations of the public service. It is noted that in order to select a relevant source it is necessary to take into account the right, the protection of which the person applied for, the consequences that led to interference, the specific circumstances of the dispute.

Key words: application of the European Convention on Human Rights, interference, violation, court decision, state discretion, right to respect for private life, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, property, rights to peaceful possession of property.

References

Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine of 06 July 2005, ed. from 04/11/2018. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2747-15. [ukr.]

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 04 November 1950, ratified by Law No 475/97-BP of 17 July 1997. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004. [ukr.]

Constitution of Ukraine of June 28, 1996, ed. from 09/30/2016. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80. [ukr.]

Judgment in Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, Grand Chamber, 19 April 2007, Application No. 63235/00. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-117762. [engl.]

Judgment in Pellegrin v. France, Grand Chamber, 08 December 1999, No. 28541/95. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-117762. [engl.]

Judgment in Denisov v. Ukraine, Grand Chamber, 25 September 2018, application no. 76639/11. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189074. [engl.]

Judgment in Baka v. Hungary, Grand Chamber, 23 June 2016, Application No. 20261/12. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-170163. [engl.]

Judgment in Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine of 09 January 2013, Application No. 21722/11. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-126884. [engl.]

Judgment in Kulykov and Others v. Ukraine of 19 January 2017, Application No. 5114/09 and 17 others. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-181470. [engl.]

A practical guide to admissibility. Conseil de l'Europe / Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, 2014 (Council of Europe / European Court of Human Rights). 2014. 128 p. URL: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_UKR.pdf. [engl.]

Fulei T. Interference with the rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: The Ukrainian Dimension. Word of the National School of Judges of Ukraine. 2018. No. 3 (24). Pp. 42–43. URL: http://slovo.nsj.gov.ua/images/pdf/slovo-3-2018.pdf. [ukr.]

Judgment in the case of Radu v. The Republic of Moldova of 15 April 2014, application no. 50073/07. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-147413. [engl.]

Judgment in Case Eweida and Others v. The United Kingdom of 15 January 2013, Application Nos. 48420/10, 59942/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-126876. [engl.]

Judgment in the case of Guja v. Moldova, Grand Chamber, 12.02.2008, application No 14277/04. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-117575. [engl.]

Judgment in the Case of Veniamin Tymoshenko and Others v. Ukraine of 02 October 2014, application No. 48408/12. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-172047. [engl.]