CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 octobre 2004

.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 68 October 2004 Danilenkov and Others v. Russia (dec.) - 67336/01 Decision 19.10.2004 [Section IV] Article 14 Discrimination Discrimination against employees, allegedly because of their trade-union membership: admissible The applicants worked as dockers at the Kaliningrad seaport and were affiliated to the Dockers’ Union of Russia (DUR). They claim that the seaport management company which employed them was under the effective control of the State (both because of its holding of shares in the company and its appointment of officials to the managing body). In October 1997, DUR began a two-week strike for better pay and working conditions. The applicants claim that thereafter DUR members were penalised for the strike and incited to relinquish their union membership. They allege that the majority of dockers who had taken part in the strike were subsequently transferred to “reserve gangs” or to the least lucrative work, which resulted in their earnings being substantially reduced (in some cases the applicants’ income fell by a half to three quarters). They submit that the decrease in their earnings was acknowledged by the State Labour Inspector, who in January 1998 ordered the company to compensate dockers who had been transferred to re-organised gangs. The applicants maintain they were also discriminated against concerning the 1998 annual test of dockers’ knowledge of work safety regulations, which was failed by the vast majority of DUR members as the conditions of the test had not been fair. Other complaints of discrimination concerned arbitrary notifications to several DUR members that they would be made redundant, transfers to part-time working schedules or exclusion from more lucrative posts in a subsidiary company. The applicants brought proceedings against the seaport authorities, but the District Court held that their discrimination complaint was unsubstantiated. Following the applicants’ appeal, the Regional Court ordered the discontinuance of the civil proceedings concerning the discrimination complaint. The court held that the existence of discrimination could only be established in criminal proceedings, and that a legal entity such as the seaport could not be held criminally liable. Admissible under Articles 11, 14 and 13: The Government’s objection that the application was to be dismissed as an actio popularis was dismissed because each of the applicants appeared to have been affected by the alleged violations of his rights.   © 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