CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 août 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 29 August 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 23922/19 Lothar GAWLIK against Liechtenstein lodged on 25 April 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal without notice of the applicant from his employment as deputy chief physician of the only public hospital of Liechtenstein, following allegations he had made – first in a discussion with the President of the Parliamentary Control Committee ( Geschäftsprüfungskommission ) and subsequently by filing a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor’s office – that he suspected the chief physician of that hospital to have performed active euthanasia. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the criteria for assessing the proportionality of the interference as set out in the Court’s case-law (see, in particular, Heinisch v. Germany , no. 28274/08, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, ECHR 2008): -     Was the information disclosed by the applicant of public interest? -     Were there effective alternative channels for making the disclosure, obtaining an internal clarification of the allegations and remedying the alleged wrongdoing available to the applicant? -     Did the applicant verify, to the extent permitted by the circumstances, that the disclosed information was accurate and reliable? -     Did the applicant act in good faith and in the belief that the information was true, that it was in the public interest to disclose it and that no other, more discreet means of remedying the alleged wrongdoing was available to him? -     Did the interest of the public in having the information revealed outweigh the damage suffered by the employer as a result of the disclosure or vice versa? -     Has the severity of the sanction imposed on the applicant and the chilling effect it may have on other employees of the hospital, or in the health sector more broadly, been sufficiently taken into consideration?