CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 août 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 12 September 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 32947/20 Ilona KIŪDYTĖ against Lithuania lodged on 8 July 2020 communicated on 23 August 2022   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint that she was unable to take up a private sector job in parallel of her current job at the State service. The applicant is a civil servant, she is a head of division at the State Tax Inspectorate. Wishing to become the director of a private enterprise which rents water sports equipment, the applicant asked the State Tax Inspectorate to allow her to take up that additional job. The employer denied the request, holding that that additional job would interfere with the applicant’s civil servant’s duties: among other, she could use information obtained at her primary job for her private company’s benefit. Besides, it could be necessary for the applicant to withdraw from her professional functions should a conflict of interests arise, which would create additional workload for the Inspectorate. The applicant contested that decision arguing that the said risks were merely hypothetical, but the administrative courts, the last decision being that of the Supreme Administrative Court of 15   April 2020, dismissed her appeals as ungrounded. The applicant complains under Articles   8 and 14 of the Convention that the ban on her having the additional job was disproportionate and discriminatory.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no.   76639/11, §§   100-117, 25   September 2018, and the case-law cited therein)?   Has there been a violation of Article   8 of the Convention?