issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 214 (2015)
23.06.2015
Case concerning legislation banning former KGB
employees from working in the private sector
no. 50421/08), the European Court of Human Rights held:
by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination),
taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European
Convention on Human Rights, on account of the first two applicants, Mr Sidabras and Mr Džiautas,
not being able to obtain employment in the private sector, and
unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 8 of
the European Convention, on account of the third applicant, Mr Rainys, not being able to obtain
employment in the private sector.
The three applicants, formerly a tax inspector, a prosecutor and a lawyer in a private
telecommunications company, complained about Lithuania’s failure to repeal legislation (“the KGB
Act”2) banning former KGB employees from working in certain spheres of the private sector, despite
ECtHR judgments in their favour in 2004 and 2005.
The Court found in particular that neither Mr Sidabras nor Mr Džiautas had plausibly demonstrated
that they had been discriminated against after the ECtHR judgments in their case. Mr Sidabras had
not provided any particular information as to who had refused to employ him as a result of
restrictions under the relevant legislation, or when. Nor did the Court see anything to contradict the
domestic courts’ conclusion in Mr Sidabras’ case that he had remained unemployed because he
lacked the necessary qualifications. As concerned Mr Džiautas, he had himself acknowledged that he
was a trainee lawyer as of 2006 and that he had never attempted to obtain other private sector jobs.
However, as concerned Mr Rainys, the Court was not convinced that the Government had
demonstrated that the domestic courts’ explicit reference to the KGB Act – namely, the fact that
Mr Rainys’ reinstatement to his job could not be resolved favourably while the KGB Act was still in
force – had not been the decisive factor forming the legal basis on which his claim for reinstatement
in the telecommunications company had been rejected.
Principal facts
The applicants, Juozas Sidabras, Kęstutis Džiautas, and Raimundas Rainys, are Lithuanian nationals
who were born in 1951, 1962, and 1949 respectively. Juozas Sidabras lives in Kaunas and Kęstutis
Džiautas, and Raimundas Rainys live Vilnius (both in Lithuania).
Mr Sidabras was a tax inspector, Mr Džiautas a prosecutor and Mr Rainys a lawyer in a private
telecommunications company until being dismissed from their posts in 1999 (the first two
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
2
Article 2 of the Law on the Evaluation of the USSR State Security Committee (NKVD, NKGB, MGB, KGB) and the Present Activities of
Permanent Employees of the Organisation, adopted on 16 July 1998, which entered into force on 1 January 1999.
