Abusive dismissal and the limits of the right of freedom of expression
JUDGMENT
Marunić v. Croatia 28-3-2017 (no. 51706/11)
SUMMARY
Freedom of expression. Dismissal due to statements made by the employee to a newspaper. The applicant complained that she had been made dismissed due to her statements made in the media in violation of her right to freedom of expression. Although she was successful in the first two proceedings the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, finding that her dismissal was justified on the basis of her public statements. She appelal before the Constitutional Court without success. Ms Marunić complained that her statements in the media had only been made in order to deny the false accusations against her and that her dismissal was in violation of Article 10 (Freedom of expression) of the ECHR. The ECtHR found that there had been a violation of the Convention.
IMPORTANCE
Dismissal due to a worker ‘s statement to the Media in order to defend herself from charges violates the right to freedom of expression.
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Mirela Marunić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Kostrena (Croatia). She complained that she had been dismissed from her job on account of statements she
had made to the media, in breach of her right to freedom of expression.
Between 2003 and October 2007 Ms Marunić was the director of a municipal utility company, KD Kostrena, which was owned by the Municipality of Kostrena. In September 2007 an article was
published in the daily Novi list, containing public criticisms about how Ms Marunić had performed her job which had been made by the mayor of Kostrena Municipality, Mr M.U.. Eight days later,
Ms Marunić responded to the criticisms in another article in Novi list. She complained that problems with the company’s performance had been caused by the legal department of the municipality,
which had allegedly been requiring the utility company to act unlawfully. She called for the company to be audited. Ms Marunić was then summarily dismissed by a decision of the company’s general meeting (which was chaired by Mr M.U.), on the grounds that her public statements had been damaging to the company’s reputation. Ms Marunić brought a civil action for wrongful dismissal. Though she was successful at first instance and on appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed the action, finding that her dismissal had been justified by her public statements. Her complaint to the Constitutional Court was also rejected.
Ms Marunić complained that her statements to the media had only been made with a view to denying the false accusations against her, and that her dismissal had been in breach of Article 10
(freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 10
Just satisfaction: 1,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) steroidi online