CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 28 July 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 678/25 Kristjan KOZOLE against Slovenia and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 9 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants, whose particulars are set out in the Appendix, were employed by public entities or publicly owned companies in Slovenia. In 2021, during the COVID-19 crisis, all but the applicant in application no. 1742/25 were dismissed from their employment because of their refusal to comply with the COVID-19 pandemic related requirements set out in the 2021 Decree on the manner of meeting the condition of recovery, vaccination and testing to curb the spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus infections (that is a proof of recent recovery from COVID-19 infection, negative COVID-19 test result or a proof of up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination) ( Odlok o načinu izpolnjevanja pogoja prebolevnosti, cepljenja in testiranja za zajezitev širjenja okužb z virusom SARS-CoV-2 , “the 2021 Decree”). The applicant in application no. 1742/25 received a warning before a dismissal and subsequently went on leave in order to avoid being dismissed. The applicants challenged the work-related sanctions (see the attached Appendix) before the domestic courts, arguing, inter alia , that COVID-19 related requirements and their consequent dismissal for non-compliance with them lacked legal and scientific basis and amounted to unlawful and disproportionate interference with their constitutional rights, including their right to work and social security. They moreover invoked the right to a fair trial, effective remedy, data protection and equal treatment before the law. Their requests for leave to appeal on points of law and their constitutional complaints were dismissed as not requiring an examination of the case on the merits. The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to address their main arguments and evidence in violation of their right to a fair trial. They further complain about having been required to comply with COVID-19 related measures as a condition for preforming their work and about the subsequently imposed work-related sanctions, arguing that they were unlawful, unnecessary, imposed a disproportionate burden on them and were not preceded by consideration of less restrictive alternatives. They also argue that the sanctions in questions have had adverse consequences for them, including an inability to meet basic needs and/or negative psychological effects. Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that their employer collected and processed their personal and health data – which underpinned the sanctions – without their consent, in the absence of a proper legal basis, and in a manner that constituted a disproportionate interference with their private life. Under Article 14 of the Convention the applicants complain about discrimination on the grounds that they – as unvaccinated persons – were required to regularly test in order to have access to, inter alia , their employment, as opposed to those who were vaccinated, despite the evidence to the effect that vaccinated people were able to transmit COVID-19. The differential treatment of nonvaccinated individuals therefore lacked any justification. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention with respect to the applicants’ obligation to comply with the COVID-19 pandemic related requirements set out in the 2021 Decree as a condition for preforming their work and their ensuing work-related sanctions?   2.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with the above stated complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, with respect to the collection and processing of their personal and health-related data by their employer? In particular, was the legal basis for collection and processing of such data sufficiently clear and foreseeable and accompanied by adequate safeguards against arbitrary interference (see, mutatis mutandis , Bykov v.   Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 81, 10 March 2009)?   4.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Employer that imposed the sanction in question Date and type of sanction 1. 678/25 Kozole v. Slovenia 28/12/2024 Kristjan KOZOLE 1983 Celje Slovenian Jernej KOKALJ Ministry of Defence – Slovenian army 21 October 2021, dismissal for misconduct ( odpoved iz kridvnega razloga ) 2. 803/25 Supančič v. Slovenia 27/12/2024 Daniel SUPANČIČ 1984 Dobova Slovenian Tomaž URBANČIČ Slovenian Railways 15 October 2021, extraordinary termination of contract ( izredna odpoved ) 3. 1742/25 Pajić v. Slovenia 03/01/2025 Tomislav PAJIĆ 1964 Jesenice na Dolenjskem Slovenian Tomaž URBANČIČ Electro Celje 15 September 2021, warning before dismissal for misconduct 4. 1744/25 Čubej v. Slovenia 04/01/2025 Urška ČUBEJ 1977 Ljubljana Slovenian Dejan KOKALJ Student dormitory Bežigrad Ljubljana 5 May 2021, dismissal for misconduct ( odpoved iz kridvnega razloga ) 5. 1748/25 Oblak v. Slovenia 03/01/2025 Mitja OBLAK 1982 Domžale Slovenian Tomaž URBANČIČ Post of Slovenia 7 October 2021, dismissal for misconduct ( odpoved iz kridvnega razloga ) 6. 12950/25 Može v. Slovenia 10/04/2025 Nataša MOŽE 1969 Senožeče Slovenian Tomaž PULKO Ministry of the Interior – Slovenian police 29 October 2021, dismissal for misconduct ( odpoved iz kridvnega razloga )