CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 octobre 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 178 October 2014 Naidin v. Romania - 38162/07 Judgment 21.10.2014 [Section III] Article 14 Discrimination Barring of a former collaborator of the political police from public-service employment: no violation Facts – Between 1990 and 1991 the applicant was a deputy prefect. He was subsequently elected and re-elected as a member of Parliament and served three parliamentary terms prior to 2004. In 2000, when the applicant was standing for election to the Chamber of Deputies for the third time, the National Council for the Study of the Former Political Police Archives (“the CNSAS”) carried out checks into the applicant’s past on its own initiative and concluded that he had collaborated with the political police between 1971 and 1974, providing information about some of his colleagues considered to be suspect. The applicant contested the CNSAS’s interpretation of his past actions before the Court of Appeal. His appeal was dismissed on the ground that he had indeed collaborated with the political police and that it was unnecessary to focus on the actual repercussions his actions may have had on the persons concerned. In 2003 a legislative amendment was introduced which barred individuals found to have worked with the political police from employment in the public service. In 2004, at the end of his parliamentary term, the applicant made a request to resume his functions as a civil servant. His request was refused. Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article   8: As a matter of principle, States had a legitimate interest in regulating employment conditions in the public service. A democratic State was entitled to require civil servants to show loyalty to the constitutional principles on which the State was founded. In the present case, the situation of Romania under the communist regime had to be taken into account, as did the fact that, in order to avoid a repetition of its past, the State had to be founded on a democracy capable of defending itself. Accordingly, the difference in treatment applied to the applicant had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting national security, public safety and the rights and freedoms of others. As to the absolute nature of the ban, the Court noted that the applicant’s career prospects had been halted only in the public service. Civil servants, and especially those occupying posts entailing a high degree of responsibility such as the post in which the applicant wished to resume employment, wielded a portion of the State’s sovereign power. The prohibition imposed on the applicant was therefore not disproportionate to the legitimate objective pursued by the State of ensuring the loyalty of persons responsible for protecting the public interest. Furthermore, no restrictions were imposed affecting the applicant’s employment prospects in the private sector, even in companies of potential significance for the State’s economic, political and security-related interests, or in other areas of the public sector which did not involve the exercise of public authority. Lastly, as to the alleged failure to take into consideration the nature and consequences of the applicant’s actions, these aspects had been examined in adversarial proceedings by the Court of Appeal. As they constituted factual elements which clearly fell within the margin of appreciation left to the national authorities, the Court could not call into question the findings reached by the domestic courts. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes