FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF TUČS v. LATVIA
(Application no. 31876/15)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
20 October 2022
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tučs v. Latvia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Lado Chanturia, President,
 Mārtiņš Mits,
 Ivana Jelić, judges,
 and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 31876/15) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 20 June 2015 by a Latvian national, Mr Renārs Tučs (“the applicant”), born in 1978 and living in Riga, who had been granted legal aid and was represented by Ms G. Oškāja, a lawyer practising in Riga;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Latvian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce;
the parties’ observations;
 
Having deliberated in private on 29 September 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns a complaint that in domestic proceedings concerning the applicant’s dismissal from his job the domestic courts had failed to address his claim that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his trade union membership and that his dismissal had circumvented procedures designed to protect trade union members. The applicant relied on Articles 6, 11 and 14 of the Convention. 2. Since 2006 the applicant had been working as a graphic designer for SIA iEvolution (initially registered under a different name), which was owned by SIA AdEvolution. Both companies provided similar services in the publishing, advertising and IT sectors. In January 2012 SIA iEvolution transferred its employees and assets to SIA AdEvolution, except for the applicant and L.P. – the only two employees belonging to a trade union. 3. In practice, the applicant and L.P. continued working on the same premises alongside their former colleagues and performing the same tasks. They were registered in SIA AdEvolution’s time-tracking system and were assigned projects from the SIA AdEvolution server on a rotating basis together with SIA AdEvolution employees. They were also indicated as SIA AdEvolution employees in its intranet and assignment documents, and their salaries were paid by SIA iEvolution from funds that were transferred to it by SIA AdEvolution. 4. In December 2012 SIA AdEvolution decided to liquidate SIA iEvolution, and the latter dismissed the applicant and L.P. without seeking approval from their trade union – an exception permitted in the case of liquidation. 5. The applicant and L.P. brought civil proceedings against both companies challenging their dismissal. They argued that in reality they had been employed by SIA AdEvolution and had been treated differently from the other employees on the basis of their trade union membership. The court requested them to submit their claims separately. The applicant and L.P. then brought separate civil proceedings as requested by the court. 6. By a final decision of 23 December 2014, the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s dismissal on the grounds that he had been employed by SIA iEvolution and that the company was being liquidated. 7. In L.P.’s case, on 15 April 2015 the Supreme Court sitting in a composition of seven judges overturned the similar judgment against her, on the grounds of a failure by the lower court to analyse all relevant aspects and arguments of the case. It considered that the conclusions that the employee transfer had not concerned L.P. and that she had not been employed by SIA AdEvolution had been drawn prematurely and without assessing all pertinent circumstances (such as, whether there had been an enterprise transfer, indications that L.P. had performed work for a SIA AdEvolution client, the source of the funds from which SIA iEvolution had paid salaries, etc.). With respect to the discrimination claim, the Supreme Court considered that it was the two respondent companies which should have provided evidence substantiating the argument that SIA AdEvolution’s failure to enter into an employment contract with the claimant was not based on her trade union membership but was objectively justified. After the adoption of this judgment, L.P.’s case was settled.

Outcome for Article 6: violation