5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Vilnius.
6.  From 2 March 1992 to 2 January 2006 the applicant worked at the Swedish embassy in Vilnius.
7.  She began as a receptionist and translator and was later promoted to be cultural, information and press officer.
8.  On 9 February 2001 the applicant wrote a letter to the Swedish ambassador in Vilnius. She stated that since 1998 a major change had been made to her work description – she had started managing cultural affairs, enjoying partial independence in decision-making and a high degree of responsibility for financial matters. She was considered as being responsible for certain categories of business because she had to draft budgets for cultural projects. Unfortunately, up to that point no adjustment in her contract had been made.
9.  The contract drawn up by the Swedish embassy in Vilnius on 19 November 2001, which the applicant and the ambassador signed, read as follows:
“Work description – Sniege Naku – information officer (cultural affairs, social secretary etc.)
Ms Naku’s work description is as follows:
- handles cultural and information matters in consultation with the Ambassador and the Cultural Attaché in Riga
- programme-maker for visitors from Swedish Government Offices as well as for other Swedish authorities
- social secretary – mainly to the Ambassador but if needed also to the Counsellor, First and Second secretary’s
- replacement for D.Z. and I.N.”
10.  The applicant submitted several letters of recommendation to the Court which were written between 1994 and 2006 by her Swedish colleagues at the embassy, including the ambassador to Lithuania between 1991 and 1994. The letters attested to her loyalty, dedication, communication skills and good working record.
The applicant also submitted another letter, signed on 30 June 2011 by her former Swedish colleague, Ms G. F. In the letter Ms G. F. stated that between 2003 and 2004 she had been posted as cultural attaché to the Baltic states, stationed in Riga, but also accredited to Vilnius, where she worked approximately one week a month. Ms G. F. stated that during that time she had worked closely with the applicant and that they had planned and carried out various projects. All the major projects had been cleared with the ambassador. The budgets had been relatively modest. Ms G. F. also stated that for the four years she had worked with the applicant she had never felt that the applicant had made a single payment without asking her, or without clearing them with the ambassador.
11.  According to the Swedish Government, in 2003 and 2004 a new routine was introduced at the Vilnius embassy by which diplomatic staff had to take decisions on financial support payments, and the applicant lost her authority to deal with those matters independently. It was around that time that a new ambassador, Mrs M. K., was appointed.
12.  The accreditation certificate issued to the applicant by the Lithuanian Foreign Ministry on 6 October 2004 stated that the applicant was “part of the administrative technical staff at the embassy of the Kingdom of Sweden (Švedijos Karalystės ambasados administracinio techninio personalo narė)”. The other page of the certificate stated that the applicant “did not enjoy any diplomatic immunities or privileges (asmens imunitetai ir privilegijos: NĖRA)”. It also said that pursuant to Article 38 § 2 of the Vienna Convention jurisdiction over the applicant was to be exercised so that the functioning of the embassy would not be disturbed (see paragraph 53 below).
13.  On 3 November 2004 the applicant and the Swedish ambassador M. K. signed a document entitled “Terms and conditions of employment for locally engaged personnel at the Embassy of Sweden in Vilnius”. The document read that Lithuanian laws applied to the employment relationship between the applicant and the embassy regarding conditions such as the payment of tax, social security contributions, overtime, sick leave, the right to leaves of absence or severance payments. Pursuant to section 17 of that document, Lithuanian legislation was to be complied with as regards dismissal from work and the employer had to have “objective grounds for dismissal”. Under section 18, an employee could be dismissed for committing a criminal act, seriously neglecting his duties, or committing further breaches of the requirements of his duties despite warnings having been given.
14.  The applicant was also the chairperson of the trade union for locally employed staff at the embassy, which was registered in 1999. Between October 2004 and June 2005 the trade union made several written complaints to the embassy about working conditions. The letters complained of a deteriorating and oppressive working atmosphere, the confused delegation of tasks, incomplete job descriptions or changes in job descriptions without local employees being consulted, a lack of clear communication, and a lack of trust. The union expressed the view that a collective agreement between the locally employed staff and the embassy could resolve such issues.
15.  The applicant’s job description of 21 March 2005, although not signed by either the Swedish ambassador or the applicant, gave her title as “Cultural, Information and Press Officer”, who worked “in cooperation with and under the guidance of the Counsellor for Political Affairs/Cultural Attaché or in relevant matters with the Second Secretary”. The applicant’s functions were described as follows:
“Operates, coordinates and assists in cultural/information events and general promotion projects;
Coordinates the annual and long-term cultural/information and general promotion planning;
Coordinates the cultural and information budget;
Operates and assists in matters regarding press, TV and radio;
Assists the Second Secretary with the communication strategy;
Handles and prepares correspondence and inquiries related to cultural, information and press matters Responsible for the ‘cultural calendar’ on the home page;
Prepares and Processes applications for financial and other support;
Processes the annual report on culture and other relevant reports;
Responsible for the Head of Missions newspapers’ review and certain translations;
Prepares and makes drafts of speeches on certain occasions;
Acting as interpreter on certain occasions;
Responsible for collecting, filing and translating various cultural and other adequate information;
Handles customs’ matters, as well as relevant notes, and setting arrangements for other proceedings including transportations of individuals and exhibitions;
Setting arrangements for cultural events in cooperation with the Counsellor for Political Affairs/Cultural Attaché for lunches, dinners and receptions, including making guests lists writing invitation, bookings and other general assistance;
Responsible for the information material from the Swedish Institute - including ordering, filing and distribution and as well the information room;
Responsible for the ‘interpreters’ list’ and the ‘cultural board’;
Handles the annual ‘book list’;
Accepts and performs other duties assigned by the Head of Mission.”
16.  By a letter of 17 May 2005 the Lithuanian State Civil Servants’ Trade Union (Lietuvos valstybės tarnautojų profesinė sąjunga) also wrote to the Swedish ambassador to Lithuania. The letter expressed concern that local personnel at the embassy were treated unfairly. The union also considered that diplomatic immunity in labour relations applied only to diplomats and their families. In contrast, labour relations between a diplomatic representation and staff who were permanent residents of Lithuania were regulated by Lithuanian law. This also flowed from the 1961 Vienna Convention, which did not grant diplomatic immunity from the civil jurisdiction.
17.  On 14 July 2005 the ambassador replied to the union that the embassy was “very anxious to be a good employer”. However, the embassy “had not signed, and would not sign, collective agreements. The embassy as a diplomatic representation is subordinated by the Vienna Convention and thus does not have to adhere to the Lithuanian Labour Code”.
18.  On 26 July 2005 Swedish radio announced and other media published articles about a report by the Swedish Labour Inspector that locally employed staff at Swedish embassies received less pay and had worse working conditions than their Swedish colleagues. The Swedish trade unions also stated that although there was no lack of legal regulation, locally employed staff would often not assert their rights for fear of losing their job.
19.  According to the Swedish Government, in the autumn of 2005 a new post of counsellor for cultural affairs was established at the embassy, which was taken up by a Swedish diplomat, Mr T. S., who became the applicant’s immediate superior. The Swedish Government also stated that according to internal embassy memorandums drafted by T.S. the applicant was a source of conflict at the embassy. There were long but fruitless discussions concerning the applicant’s work description. According to T.S., the applicant ignored his decisions and instructions, took decisions on her own on granting financial support, failed to follow agreed plans and lacked skills in a number of areas.
20.  On 8 November 2005 the embassy drafted a new job description for the applicant. She was named “Officer for Cultural and Information Affairs”, and was to handle “cultural matters in consultation with the Counsellor for Cultural Affairs T.S.”. Her functions were essentially identical to those given in the job description of 21 March 2005 (see paragraph 15 above). The same day, the applicant informed the embassy in writing that she did not agree with that job description because it lacked a clear definition of her responsibilities and those of T.S. She expressed a wish to involve a neutral person in negotiations over her working duties.
21.  The following day, 9 November 2005, the ambassador presented the applicant with a “Letter of caution”. According to the letter, the ambassador saw no future for the applicant at the embassy, due to the applicant’s “difficulties to cooperate”, “lack of performance”, “constant questioning and arguing over duties to be performed” and “inability to cope with changes in [the] Embassy’s and/or [the applicant’s] own tasks”. The applicant was given two days to hand in her resignation, or the embassy would “take other action”.
22.  According to a statement written by one of the applicant’s former Lithuanian colleagues at the embassy, D.K., on 9 November 2005 the applicant was asked to hand over her keys to the embassy and leave the premises immediately. The following day the applicant came to work as usual but was not let into the embassy. According to D.K., he saw the applicant “waiting in terrible cold for around one hour outside until the reception opened for visitors. Then she walked in, sat for a while and then left. The next day she fell seriously ill and never returned [again]”.
23.  On 11 November 2005 the applicant went on sick leave. The sick leave certificates, issued by the Central Polyclinic (Centro poliklinika) in Vilnius, confirm that she was on sick leave as of that date. The leave was prolonged on a weekly basis and without interruption until 2 March 2006. At one point during that time, in January 2006, she was admitted for two weeks to Vilnius University Hospital’s neurology unit, where she was diagnosed with reversal ischemic neurological deficit in the vertebrobasilar basin. The applicant was also on sick leave in December 2006 and for some months in 2007.
24.  Whilst the applicant was on sick leave, on 21 November 2005, the Lithuanian trade union confederation (Lietuvos profesinių sąjungų konfederacija) organised a protest in front of the Swedish embassy building in Vilnius against the applicant’s dismissal. The protest was covered by news outlets in Sweden. According to a statement by one of the applicant’s former Lithuanian colleagues at the embassy, K.M.P., the local staff of the embassy did not attend the protest for fear of negative repercussions.
25.  On 23 November 2005 the Swedish embassy sent a decision to the applicant’s home address which stated that a disciplinary sanction would be imposed on the applicant – dismissal from work for gross misconduct. The ambassador stated that she had been informed on 4 and 9 November 2005 that the applicant had accused her Swedish colleague T.S. of being “unbalanced”, that on several occasions the applicant had breached security rules at the embassy by opening a window on street level that had no bars, and that she had conducted a private meeting at the embassy, which was an unacceptable use of her working time.
26.  In written replies of 5 and 8 December 2005, the applicant noted that she had indeed called T.S. “unbalanced” during an employee meeting at the embassy, but that that had been because he had earlier shouted at her and had never apologised. The applicant also stated that staff at the embassy had never signed any safety or security regulations. Lastly, the meeting referred to by the ambassador had concerned asking a cleaning company to come to the embassy, and that such a practice had been begun by Swedish staff and had been used continually during previous years. The applicant noted that she had never received any prior warning of the accusations against her, which were a pretext to get rid of her because of her trade-union activities.
27.  On 20 December 2005 the embassy sent a letter to the applicant’s home, stating that the embassy had had confirmation of the applicant’s sick leave from the social insurance office (Sodra), attesting that the applicant had been ill up to 3 December. The applicant was asked to present a continuous or new doctor’s certificate no later than 30 December, including an indication of when she would recover.
28.  On 30 December 2005 the Swedish embassy dismissed the applicant from her post, effective as of 2 January 2006. The order referred to Article 136 § 3 (2) of the Lithuanian Labour Code, which permits an employer to terminate an employment contract without giving prior notice to the employee if the latter has committed an act of gross misconduct. The embassy referred to its decision of 23 November 2005 in order to impose such a sanction on the applicant (see paragraph 25 above). The embassy also stated that on 5 December 2005 it had received a sick leave certificate from the applicant that was valid until 3 December, but that no medical certificates had been presented thereafter, despite a written request. According to the applicant’s version of events, and as attested in writing by her former Lithuanian colleague D.K., in November and December 2005 she had kept the Swedish embassy informed of her illness, with her husband also taking sick leave certificates to the embassy in person. An internal embassy memorandum shows that on 5 January 2006 the applicant’s husband had taken a sick leave certificate to the embassy for the period up to 2 January 2006.
29.  The applicant’s dismissal was subsequently mentioned on the internet site of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions as one of the mistreatments which had taken place in 2005. The report stated:
“the explanation given by [the ambassador], when interviewed by Swedish radio, was that Ms Naku was dismissed for not doing her job properly, but she declined to give further details. However, before the new ambassador took office, Ms Naku had not received any complaints about her work during her fourteen years of service. Meanwhile, [the ambassador] explained to the Baltic Times newspaper ... that, as a diplomatic representation, the embassy did not have to comply with Lithuanian labour legislation, that the tone of trade union letters was rude and that there could not be any collective agreements in a diplomatic mission.”
30.  Arguing unlawful dismissal, the applicant brought proceedings against the Swedish embassy in the Vilnius Regional Court. She submitted that “for the last seven years I have been the Head of Culture and information projects at the embassy (pastaruosius septynis metus esu ambasados Kultūros ir informacios projektų vadovė)”, and asked to be reinstated to her former post. She also sought pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The applicant argued that she had been dismissed while on sick leave, which was a clear breach of Lithuanian law (see paragraph 48 below). She also challenged the allegation that she had committed acts of gross misconduct as the grounds for her dismissal, contrary to what had been suggested by the embassy. Lastly, she noted that as a result of her arbitrary dismissal she had suffered loss of reputation and her health had significantly deteriorated. She stated that she had been destroyed, both psychologically and physically.
31.  On 19 May 2006, the Kingdom of Sweden claimed immunity from the jurisdiction of the Lithuanian courts:
“Reply to civil claim – re Mrs Sniege Naku
With reference to the Court’s letter/announcement of March 6, 2006, regarding civil case No. 2-1479/41/06, the Swedish Government demands that the plaintiff’s case is refused with reference to acknowledged case law of the Republic of Lithuania (V.Stukonis vs. US Embassy and A.Cudak/Senkevic vs. the Embassy of the Republic of Poland).
[M.K.]
Ambassador”
32.  By a judgment of 5 June 2006 the Vilnius Regional Court granted the embassy’s request for the merits of the applicant’s complaints to be left without examination because the embassy had invoked the defence of diplomatic immunity. The court stated:
“Contemporary international law and doctrine acknowledge the doctrine of limited immunity, whereby immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign state courts is granted only in areas of State activities which are regulated by public law, and eliminates the possibility of applying State immunity in the area of private law, not linked with the implementation of State sovereignty. Accordingly, when trying to establish whether in the present case the respondent can claim State immunity, it is necessary to establish the nature of the relationship between the plaintiff and the respondent, because this relationship determined what kind of immunity – absolute or limited – should be applied to the State. The plaintiff worked at the embassy of the Kingdom of Sweden as Head of Culture and Information Projects. Even though a labour contract had been concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, the job position of the applicant in itself (pati ieškovės pareigybė) pre-supposes (suponuoja) that the legal relationship between the parties had a civil service nature (a public-law relationship) rather than that of labour (a private law relationship), because the plaintiff’s functions were linked to the implementation of the Kingdom of Sweden’s sovereignty. The embassy, as an institution of a foreign diplomatic service, represents a foreign State, maintains international relations, implements foreign policy goals and defends the rights and interests of its citizens and other individuals. Accordingly and also based on the legal practice of the Lithuanian courts, work of such a nature belongs to a relationship regulated by public law (the Supreme Court’s decisions in the civil cases of V. Stukonis vs the USA Embassy and A. Cudak/Senkevič vs the Embassy of Poland). The ability of the court to protect the rights of the plaintiff depends on whether the foreign State has demanded that the doctrine of State immunity be applied. In this case the embassy of the Kingdom of Sweden made such a request on 19 May 2006, relying on Lithuanian case-law. This means that the case must be discontinued.”
33.  The applicant appealed, arguing that the lower court’s conclusion on applying State immunity had been superficial as it had been based solely on a request by the Swedish embassy, whereas the applicant’s job at the embassy had had nothing to do with the exercise of the sovereign authority of the Kingdom of Sweden. The applicant emphasised that by itself the fact that she had been the head of culture and information projects did not prove that there had been a State civil service relationship (valstybės tarnybos pobūdžio santykiai) between her and the embassy. She pointed out that the first‑instance court had not examined the scope of her functions. She also relied on the 1972 European Convention on State Immunity (see paragraph 54 below). Even though neither Lithuania nor Sweden had acceded to that Convention, it was significant for comparative purposes. In that context the applicant noted that under Articles 4 and 5 of that Convention States could not ask for the application of State immunity in private-law cases, particularly if the proceedings related to a contract of employment between the State and an individual and where the work was performed on the latter’s State territory. That was precisely the case of the applicant, who had a work contract with the Swedish embassy, which was regulated by the Lithuanian Labour Code.
34.  On 7 September 2007, in written proceedings, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision by holding the following:
“The chamber agrees with the first-instance court’s legal argumentation that a foreign state has a right to invoke State immunity from foreign jurisdiction (1961 Vienna Convention ‘On Diplomatic Relations’). International law and international law doctrine acknowledge the doctrine of limited immunity, when immunity from foreign courts’ jurisdiction is granted only to a State’s activity in the public-law sphere, and immunity does not apply in the private law sphere, which is not linked to exercising sovereignty. When establishing whether the dispute arose from a relationship covered by absolute State immunity or from a relationship where the State does not have immunity, it is necessary to establish the nature of the dispute. The plaintiff stated that a labour contract (darbo sutartis) has been concluded between her and the embassy of the Kingdom of Sweden. Accordingly, it is necessary to establish whether the applicant and the embassy of the Kingdom of Sweden had employment legal relationship (darbo teisiniai santykiai), or a State civil service legal relationship (valstybės tarnybos teisiniai santykiai). It transpires from the case file that the plaintiff S. Naku worked at the embassy of the Kingdom of Sweden as the head of culture and information projects (kultūros ir informacijos projektų vadovė). The chamber holds that even though a labour contract had been concluded between the parties, the very title of the job (pagal pačios pareigybės pavadinimą) shows that the duties assigned to the applicant helped the Kingdom of Sweden to a certain extent (tam tikru aspektu) to execute its sovereign functions. For that reason the first‑instance court correctly held that there was not a labour (private), but a State civil service (public) legal relationship, regulated by public law. Even though the plaintiff in her appeal states that her job functions were not related to implementing the Kingdom of Sweden’s sovereignty, she did not provide the court with evidence to prove that.
Taking into account that the embassy of the Kingdom of Sweden notified the court that it does not agree to be a defendant in the proceedings related to the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the chamber concludes that the first-instance court was correct in holding that it did not have jurisdiction in this case. The arguments the plaintiff raised in her appeal do not refute that conclusion.
It must be noted that the application of state immunity from the jurisdiction of Lithuanian courts does not prohibit the plaintiff from submitting an analogous lawsuit in a court in the Kingdom of Sweden.”
35.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was drafted by an advocate. She argued that there had been a breach of her right of access to a court in that the lower courts had only applied the principle of State immunity on the basis of the title of her job and without any further examination of the relations between her and her employer or of the nature and the scope of her duties, in order to conclude that her work had related to the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Sweden. If a foreign State did not agree that a case against it should be decided in a court of another State, proper arguments and proof had to be presented. However, it was not clear from the decisions of the lower courts on what grounds the Kingdom of Sweden had asked for immunity and why a request to apply State immunity was of itself deemed to be sufficient for the Lithuanian courts. The applicant reiterated that she and the Swedish embassy had been bound by work relations of a private nature, based on an employment contract concluded under the Lithuanian Labour Code.
36.  The applicant also requested that the Supreme Court ask the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling and to interpret Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. In the applicant’s view, the Vilnius Regional Court and the Court of Appeal had in their decisions disregarded point 13 of the preamble to that Regulation as well as Article 19 thereof (see paragraph 61 below).
37.  By a ruling of 6 April 2007, in written proceedings, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It noted that Lithuania had not ratified the 2004 United Nations Convention on State Immunities. Accordingly, the provisions of that Convention, including Article 11, could be seen only as guidelines (see paragraphs 59 and 60 below).
38.  As to the question of State immunity from foreign courts’ jurisdiction, the Supreme Court noted the lower courts’ conclusion that “from the title of the applicant’s job description (head of culture and information projects) it was already possible to conclude that the duties which were assigned to her contributed to a certain extent (tam tikru aspektu) to the Kingdom of Sweden’s implementation of its sovereign functions. Therefore, the parties were not linked by legal employment relations regulated by private law, but by legal civil service regulations under public law, that is to say relations for which a State may invoke the doctrine of immunity.
The Supreme Court also held:
“... the chamber also observes that international practice is not consistent as concerns the question of which persons working at a diplomatic representation of another State participate in the public functions of the State they represent and who, as a result, work in the civil service of the represented State, on the one hand, and which persons are engaged in activities that are not related to the performance of State functions, and whose activity consequently falls under private law, on the other. Given that there are no international legal norms which are obligatory and regulate the above questions, it is for each State to decide which persons who work at a diplomatic representation should be considered as being in State service [of a foreign State]. As can be seen from the limited case-law of the Republic of Lithuania, it is considered that everyone who works in a diplomatic representation of a foreign State, that is to say, the administrative and technical personnel and service personnel of a diplomatic representation, in one way or another contribute to the performance of the sovereign rights of a represented State, carrying out public-law functions, and therefore they are considered to be [employed] in the civil service of that State. For example, in a ruling of 25 June 2001, in the civil case A.Č. (S.) v the Embassy of the Republic of Poland ..., the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff, who worked at the embassy of the Republic of Poland as a receptionist at the front desk, that is to say she had a technical job, was helping Poland in the implementation of its sovereign rights, and that as a result she was in a legal civil service relationship with the Embassy of Poland.
The chamber concludes that in the present case, taking into account the fact that the plaintiff [the applicant] worked at the embassy of the Kingdom of Sweden as the head of cultural and information projects and was thus a member of the administrative-technical staff at the diplomatic representation, the lower courts have correctly established that she and the Kingdom of Sweden were in a legal civil service relationship regulated by public law. It is also noteworthy that Article 3 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations mentions, among the functions of a diplomatic representation, the collection of information about conditions and developments in the receiving State, as well as the promotion of friendly cultural relations. Therefore it is evident that the plaintiff [the applicant], as the head of cultural and information projects, was helping the embassy of the Kingdom of Sweden to perform the functions of the represented State in the receiving State. This also confirms that the plaintiff and the Kingdom of Sweden were in a legal civil service relationship.
The chamber dismisses the [applicant’s] arguments that the fact that the defendant, when employing the plaintiff and when dismissing her, relied on the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, shows that the parties were in a legal labour law relationship and not a State civil service legal relationship. The fact that the parties chose an employment contract to formalise the legal relationship between them and that they noted that Lithuanian law is applicable [to that relationship], is not in itself a ground to conclude that the parties were bound by an employment legal relationship, and not by that of the civil service, because, as has been mentioned, all the members of the diplomatic representation’s staff who work at the representation are considered to be in the civil service of the [represented] State, irrespective of the nature of the contracts concluded with them.
There are also no grounds for the [applicant] to rely on the definition of a civil servant prescribed in the Lithuanian law on the State Civil Service. It is a universally recognised principle that the legal status of State institutions and thus of civil servants is defined in accordance with the law of that State. In this case the question to be decided is the legal relationship between the [applicant] and the embassy of the Kingdom of Sweden, and not that between the applicant and Lithuanian State institutions.
[The applicant] in her appeal on points of law also argues that an objection by a foreign State against a case being heard in another State’s court must be reasoned and based on evidence. For the [applicant] it is not clear from the lower courts’ decisions on what basis the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden demanded that State immunity be applied and why those courts found the embassy’s letter alone to be sufficient.
The chamber notes that it is clear from the letter signed by the ambassador of the embassy of the Kingdom of Sweden to Lithuania, which was given to the Lithuanian courts, that the Kingdom of Sweden demands (reikalauja) the doctrine of state immunity to be applied in the [applicant’s] case. Therefore, as the courts have established that in the present case the dispute arose from a legal relationship regulated by public law, where the Kingdom of Sweden can invoke the doctrine of State immunity, the aforementioned demand is sufficient to conclude that Lithuanian courts have no jurisdiction to decide this dispute.”
39.  The Supreme Court also dismissed the applicant’s request for a referral to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. For the Supreme Court, a referral would only have been necessary if a domestic court had established that the parties had been in a legal employment relationship regulated by private law, in which case the Kingdom of Sweden could not have claimed immunity. However, given that it had been established that the applicant and the embassy of Sweden had been in a civil service legal relationship, regulated by public law, and that a State or its embassy could thus ask for immunity from a foreign court’s jurisdiction, there was no basis to apply the rules of Regulation No. 44/2001. Lastly, the Supreme Court noted that a preliminary ruling was only necessary when a national court had doubts as to the correct application of European Union law, which was not the case.
40.  The Lithuanian Constitution provides that a person whose constitutional rights or freedoms have been violated has the right to apply to a court (Article 30).
41.  There is no special legislation governing the issue of State immunity in Lithuania. The question is usually resolved by the courts on a case-by-case basis, with reference to the provisions of various bilateral and multilateral treaties (see also Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no. 15869/02, §§ 19-22, ECHR 2010).
42.  After the Court’s judgment in the case of Cudak (cited above), Ms Cudak asked the Lithuanian courts to reopen her case of unlawful dismissal from the Polish embassy. By a ruling of 16 September 2010 the Supreme Court reopened the civil case and remitted it to the Vilnius Regional Court for fresh examination.
43.  In February 2011 Ms Cudak resubmitted and revised her civil claim (pateikė patikslintą ieškinį) by asking: (1) that her dismissal from her job at the Polish embassy on 22 November 1999 be declared unlawful and that she be returned to her earlier job as secretary and switchboard operator; (2) that she be awarded her salary for forced absence from work (už priverstinę pravaikštą) from the Polish embassy from the day of her dismissal to 31 January 2011, which was over 257,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL), as well as interest on that sum; and (3) to award her litigation costs.
44.  By a ruling of 13 May 2011 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed her civil claim. It held that she had not proved that she had been dismissed for reasons related to sexual harassment.
45.  On 11 November 2011 the Court of Appeal quashed that decision and partly granted the claim by acknowledging that she had been dismissed unlawfully. However, the appellate court found that in her initial lawsuit of 9 December 1999 she had not asked the court to reinstate her to her former job at the Polish embassy because of unfavourable working conditions there, but to award her compensation instead. Under Article 42 § 3 of the Labour Code that amount was equal to twelve months’ salary. It was only in her revised claim of February 2011 that she had changed her demands and asked for reinstatement, under Article 42 §§ 1 and 2 of the Labour Code, and for compensation for the entire period of her forced absence from work.
46.  The Court of Appeal then noted that twelve years had passed since she had worked at the Polish embassy. It was only natural that working duties and the structure of jobs at the embassy had changed. Moreover, the embassy had no free posts in which to employ her. For those reasons the Court of Appeal considered it fair to not reinstate the applicant but to award her approximately LTL 23,000, the equivalent of twelve months’ salary at the Polish embassy, plus costs for litigating in Lithuania.
47.  On 26 June 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision.
48.  The Labour Code, which regulates disputes over employment contracts, provides that while exercising their rights and fulfilling their duties employers and employees are bound to comply with laws, observe the common rules of life and adhere to the principles of reasonableness, justice and honesty. The abuse of one’s rights is prohibited. It is prohibited to hinder the formation of trade unions by employees and to interfere with the lawful activities of unions (Article 35). It is also prohibited to give notice of the termination of an employment contract and to dismiss someone from work when an employee is on temporary sick leave (Article 131 § 1). Employees who have temporarily lost their functional capacity owing to sickness are to retain their position and duties if they are absent from work for no more than 120 days consecutively or for not more than 140 days within the previous 12 months (Article 133 § 2). An employer is entitled to terminate an employment contract without giving the employee any prior notice when the employee commits an act of gross misconduct (Article 136 § 3 (2)). An act of gross misconduct is a breach of discipline at work involving a gross violation of the provisions of laws and other legal acts which directly regulate the employee’s work, or any other gross transgression of work duties or work regulations. An act of gross misconduct at work may involve improper conduct with visitors or customers or any other acts which directly or indirectly violate a person’s constitutional rights (Article 235).
49.  The Labour Code also provides that if an employee has been dismissed from his or her job without proper legal grounds or in breach of the law, the court will reinstate him or her and order the payment of his or her average salary from the time of the unlawful dismissal until the execution of the court’s decision (Article 297 § 3). However, should the court establish that the employee may not be reinstated for economic, technological, organisational or similar reasons, or because he may find himself in unfavourable conditions, the court will declare the dismissal unlawful and award the employee his or her average salary from the time of the unlawful dismissal until the execution of the court’s decision, as well as severance pay (Article 297 § 4). Severance pay depends on the employee’s length of service. If the employee, as the applicant in this case, has worked in a particular job for between 120 and 240 months, severance pay is equal to the sum of five average salaries (Article 140 § 1 (5)).
50.  As regards the interpretation and application of Article 297 §§ 3 and 4 of the Labour Code, the Supreme Court summed up its well‑established practice in a ruling of 30 March 2010 in a civil case no. 3K‑3‑139/2010. It observed that once a dismissal had been declared unlawful, it was for the court examining the case to verify whether any unfavourable conditions prevented the return of the employee to his previous job. The court had to examine the existence of such conditions ex officio, irrespective of whether the employee had relied on that ground in his claim. Similarly, the court was not bound by the employee’s claim. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 297 of the Labour Code were alternative measures to protect the employee’s rights and promote social justice. Accordingly, should the court find that the employee could not return to his former job because of unfavourable conditions, it should apply Article 297 § 4 of the Labour Code as a remedy for the breach of the employee’s rights. If no such unfavourable conditions had been established, the court should apply Article 297 § 3.
51.  Article 135 § 1 (2) and (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure at the relevant time provided that a civil claim must contain a description of the factual circumstances on which the claim was based (aplinkybės, kuriomis ieškovas grindžia savo reikalavimą (faktinis ieškinio pagrindas)), and the plaintiff’s claim (ieškovo reikalavimas (ieškinio dalykas)). The plaintiff could change either the basis of the claim or the claim itself until the judge had decided to hear the case in a court hearing, or later in the proceedings if the respondent or the court did not object (Article 141 § 1).
52.  The Public Employment Act (1994:260) of the Kingdom of Sweden sets out that the Act applies to employees of the Swedish Parliament and its authorities and to employees of authorities under Government control. Section 3 of the Act explicitly states that it does not apply to employees who are taken on locally by the Swedish State abroad and who are not Swedish nationals. Labour law issues of such employees are normally regulated by contracts.
53.  Article 1 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, in force in Lithuania as of 14 February 1992, reads as follows:
Article 1
“For the purpose of the present Convention, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereunder assigned to them:
(a)  The ‘head of the mission’ is the person charged by the sending State with the duty of acting in that capacity;
(b)  The ‘members of the mission’ are the head of the mission and the members of the staff of the mission;
(c)  The ‘members of the staff of the mission’ are the members of the diplomatic staff, of the administrative and technical staff and of the service staff of the mission;
(d)  The ‘members of the diplomatic staff’ are the members of the staff of the mission having diplomatic rank;
(e)  A ‘diplomatic agent’ is the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission;
(f)  The ‘members of the administrative and technical staff’ are the members of the staff of the mission employed in the administrative and technical service of the mission;
...”
Article 3
“1.  The functions of a diplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in:
(a)  Representing the sending State in the receiving State; ...
(d)  Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State;
(e)  Promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations. 2.  Nothing in the present Convention shall be construed as preventing the performance of consular functions by a diplomatic mission.”
Article 38
“1.  Except insofar as additional privileges and immunities may be granted by the receiving State, a diplomatic agent who is a national of or permanently resident in that State shall enjoy only immunity from jurisdiction, and inviolability, in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions. 2.  Other members of the staff of the mission and private servants who are nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State shall enjoy privileges and immunities only to the extent admitted by the receiving State. However, the receiving State must exercise its jurisdiction over those persons in such a manner as not to interfere unduly with the performance of the functions of the mission.”
54.  The relevant provisions of the 1972 European Convention on State Immunity (“the Basle Convention”) read as follows:
Article 4
“1.  Subject to the provisions of Article 5, a Contracting State cannot claim immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of another Contracting State if the proceedings relate to an obligation of the State, which, by virtue of a contract, falls to be discharged in the territory of the State of the forum. 2.  Paragraph 1 shall not apply where:
(a)  in the case of a contract concluded between States;
(b)  if the parties to the contract have otherwise agreed in writing;
(c)  if the State is party to a contract concluded on its territory and the obligation of the State is governed by its administrative law.”
Article 5
“1.  A Contracting State cannot claim immunity from the jurisdiction of a court of another Contracting State if the proceedings relate to a contract of employment between the State and an individual where the work has to be performed on the territory of the State of the forum. 2.  Paragraph 1 shall not apply where:
(a)  the individual is a national of the employing State at the time when the proceedings are brought;
(b)  at the time when the contract was entered into the individual was neither a national of the State of the forum nor habitually resident in that State; or
(c)  the parties to the contract have otherwise agreed in writing, unless, in accordance with the law of the State of the forum, the courts of that State have exclusive jurisdiction by reason of the subject matter. ... ”
55.  The Convention’s Explanatory Report indicates that “[a]s regards contracts of employment with diplomatic missions or consular posts, Article 32 shall also be taken into account”. That Article provides as follows:
Article 32
“Nothing in the present Convention shall affect privileges and immunities relating to the exercise of the functions of diplomatic missions and consular posts and of persons connected with them.”
56.  Neither Lithuania nor Sweden is party to the Basle Convention. The Lithuanian Supreme Court has, however, acknowledged the pertinence of general principles of international law, and in particular of that Convention when questions related to State immunity are being examined (see Cudak, cited above, § 17).
57.  In 1979 the United Nations International Law Commission (ILC) was given the task of codifying and gradually developing international law in matters of jurisdictional immunities of States and their property. It produced a number of drafts that were submitted to States for comment. The Draft Articles that were used as the basis for the text adopted in 2004 dated back to 1991. The relevant part of the text then read as follows:
Article 11 – Contracts of employment
“1.  Unless otherwise agreed between the States concerned, a State cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction before a court of another State which is otherwise competent in a proceeding which relates to a contract of employment between the State and an individual for work performed or to be performed, in whole or in part, in the territory of that other State. 2.  Paragraph 1 does not apply if:
(a)  the employee has been recruited to perform functions closely related to the exercise of governmental authority;
(b)  the subject of the proceeding is the recruitment, renewal of employment or reinstatement of an individual;
(c)  the employee was neither a national nor a habitual resident of the State of the forum at the time when the contract of employment was concluded;
(d)  the employee is a national of the employer State at the time when the proceeding is instituted; or
(e)  the employer State and the employee have otherwise agreed in writing, subject to any considerations of public policy conferring on the courts of the State of the forum exclusive jurisdiction by reason of the subject matter of the proceeding.”
58.  In the commentary on Article 11 of the Draft Articles of 1991, the International Law Commission observed that the rules formulated in that Article appeared to be consistent with the trend in the legislative and treaty practice of a growing number of States. The Commission also held:
(a)  Nature and scope of the exception of ‘contracts of employment’
“...
(3)  With the involvement of two sovereign States, two legal systems compete for application of their respective laws. The employer State has an interest in the application of its law in regard to the selection, recruitment and appointment of an employee by the State or one of its organs, agencies or instrumentalities acting in the exercise of governmental authority. It would also seem justifiable that for the exercise of disciplinary supervision over its own staff or government employees, the employer State has an overriding interest in ensuring compliance with its internal regulations and the prerogative of appointment or dismissal which results from unilateral decisions taken by the State.
(4)  On the other hand, the State of the forum appears to retain exclusive jurisdiction if not, indeed, an overriding interest in matters of domestic public policy regarding the protection to be afforded to its local labour force. Questions relating to medical insurance, insurance against certain risks, minimum wages, entitlement to rest and recreation, vacation with pay, compensation to be paid on termination of the contract of employment, and so forth, are of primary concern to the State of the forum, especially if the employees were recruited for work to be performed in that State, or at the time of recruitment were its nationals or habitual or permanent residents there. Beyond that, the State of the forum may have less reason to claim an overriding or preponderant interest in exercising jurisdiction. The basis for jurisdiction is distinctly and unmistakably the closeness of territorial connection between the contracts of employment and the State of the forum, namely performance of work in the territory of the State of forum, as well as the nationality or habitual residence of the employees. Indeed, local staff working, for example, in a foreign embassy would have no realistic way to present a claim other than in a court of the State of forum. Article 11, in this respect, provides an important guarantee to protect their rights. The employees covered under the present article include both regular employees and short-term independent contractors.”
(b)  The rule of non-immunity
“(5)  Article 11 therefore endeavours to maintain a delicate balance between the competing interests of the employer State with regard to application of its law and the overriding interests of the State of the forum for the application of its labour law and, in certain exceptional cases, also in retaining exclusive jurisdiction over the subject‑matter of a proceedings,
(6)  Paragraph 1 thus represents an effort to state the rule of non-immunity. In its formulation, the basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by the competent court of the State of the forum is apparent from the place of performance of work under the contract of employment in the territory of the State of the forum. (...)”
(c)  Circumstances justifying maintenance of the rule of State immunity
“(8)  Paragraph 2 strives to establish and maintain an appropriate balance by introducing important limitations on the application of the rule of non-immunity, by enumerating circumstances where the rule of immunity still prevails.
(9)  Paragraph 2 (a) enunciates the rule of immunity for the engagement of government employees or rank whose functions are closely related to the exercise of governmental authority. Examples of such employees are private secretaries, code clerks, interpreters, translators and other persons entrusted with functions related to State security or basic interest of the State. Officials of established accreditation are, of course, covered by this subparagraph. Proceedings relating to their contracts of employment will not be allowed to be instituted or entertained before the courts of the State of forum. The Commission on second reading considered that expression ‘services associated with the exercise of governmental authority’ which had appeared in the text adopted on first reading might lend itself to unduly extensive interpretation, since a contract of employment concluded by a State stood a good chance of being ‘associated with the exercise of governmental authority’, even very indirectly. It was suggested that the exception provided for in subparagraph (a) was justified only if there was a close link between the work to be performed and the exercise of governmental authority. The word ‘associated’ has therefore been amended to read ‘closely related’. (...)
(10)  Paragraph 2 (b) is designed to confirm the existing practice of States in support of the rule of immunity in the exercise of the discretionary power of appointment or non-appointment by the State of an individual to any official post or employment position. This includes actual appointment which under the law of the employer State is considered to be a unilateral act of governmental authority. So also are the acts of ‘dismissal’ or ‘removal’ of a government employee by the State, which normally take place after the conclusion of an inquiry or investigation as part of supervisory or disciplinary jurisdiction exercised by the employer State. This subparagraph also covers cases where the employee seeks the renewal of his employment or reinstatement after untimely termination of his engagement. The rule of immunity applies to proceedings for recruitment, renewal or employment and reinstatement of an individual only. It is without prejudice to the possible recourse which may still be available in the State of forum for compensation or damages for ‘wrongful dismissal’ or for breaches of obligation to recruit or to renew employment. In other words, this subparagraph does not prevent an employee from bringing action against the employer State in the State of the forum to seek redress for damage arising from recruitment, renewal of the employment or reinstatement of an individual. The Commission on second reading replaced the words ‘the proceeding relates to’ adopted on first reading by the words ‘the subject of the proceeding is’ to clarify this particular point. (...)”
59.  In December 2004 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property (hereinafter – ‘the 2004 United Nations Convention’). It was opened for signature on 17 January 2005, and has not yet entered into force. One of the major issues that had arisen during the codification work by the ILC related to the exception from State immunity in so far as it related to employment contracts. The Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
Article 5 – State immunity
“A State enjoys immunity, in respect of itself and its property, from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State subject to the provisions of the present Convention.”
Article 6 – Modalities for giving effect to State immunity
“1.  A State shall give effect to State immunity under article 5 by refraining from exercising jurisdiction in a proceeding before its courts against another State and to that end shall ensure that its courts determine on their own initiative that the immunity of that other State under article 5 is respected. 2.  A proceeding before a court of a State shall be considered to have been instituted against another State if that other State:
(a)  is named as a party to that proceeding; or;
(b)  is not named as a party to the proceeding but the proceeding in effect seeks to affect the property, rights, interests or activities of that other State.”
Article 11 – Contracts of employment
“1.  Unless otherwise agreed between the States concerned, a State cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction before a court of another State which is otherwise competent in a proceeding which relates to a contract of employment between the State and an individual for work performed or to be performed, in whole or in part, in the territory of that other State. 2.  Paragraph 1 does not apply if:
(a)  the employee has been recruited to perform particular functions in the exercise of governmental authority;
(b)  the employee is:
(i)  a diplomatic agent, as defined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961;
(ii)  a consular officer, as defined in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963;
(iii)  a member of the diplomatic staff of a permanent mission to an international organisation or of a special mission, or is recruited to represent a State at an international conference; or
(iv)  any other person enjoying diplomatic immunity;
(c)  the subject matter of the proceeding is the recruitment, renewal of employment or reinstatement of an individual;
(d)  the subject matter of the proceeding is the dismissal or termination of employment of an individual and, as determined by the head of State, the head of government or the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the employer State, such a proceeding would interfere with the security interests of that State;
(e)  the employee is a national of the employer State at the time when the proceeding is instituted, unless this person has the permanent residence in the State of the forum; or
(f)  the employer State and the employee have otherwise agreed in writing, subject to any considerations of public policy conferring on the courts of the State of the forum exclusive jurisdiction by reason of the subject matter of the proceeding.”
60.  Lithuania did not vote against the adoption of that text but has not ratified it either (see Cudak, cited above, § 31).
61.  The Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters sets out, in part 13 of the Preamble, that in relation to employment the weaker party should be protected by rules of jurisdiction more favorable to his interests than the general rules provide for. The Regulation also reads:
Article 19
“An employer domiciled in a Member State may be sued: 2.  in another Member State:
(a)  in the courts for the place where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place where he did so, or
(b)  if the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated.”