Dismissal of the trade union chair due to a letter she sent to state officials! In camera trial! Violation of the freedom of association and fair trial
JUDGMENT
Straume v. Latvia 02.06.2022 (app. no. 59402/14)
SUMMARY
Ms Straume was an air-traffic controller and chair of her trade union. The case concerned her
treatment by her employer and ultimately her firing for statements made regarding safety in a letter
to the State officials overseeing her State-owned employer on behalf of the union.
The Court found that the measures taken in her case – in particular the disciplinary investigation, her
suspension, “idle standing” and dismissal – had not been proportionate to the legitimate aim of
protecting the rights of her employer, and had thus not been “necessary in a democratic society.
It also found that the domestic courts had not justified the need to hold the civil proceedings in a
closed courtroom and to not have the judgments delivered or made available publicly, despite the
great need in this case for public scrutiny.
PROVISIONS
Article 6
Article 10
Article 11
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Aušra Straume, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Riga.
In 2005 Ms Straume began working as an air-traffic control officer for a State-owned company,
Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (LGS). In 2011 the company asked her to sign an updated job description,
which she did with a note expressing her disagreement with a point which disadvantaged people
who had taken maternity leave regarding promotion. She signed a revised job description a year
later.
In 2011 Ms Straume became chair of the new Latvian Air Traffic Controllers’ Trade Union. The union
sought clarification about a recent order concerning work schedules for air-traffic control
instructors. LGS responded that such training had to be carried out outside normal work shifts – it
would be regarded as additional work and would be paid separately. In subsequent correspondence
the union asserted that instructors’ training work was not being recorded and that those instructors
were thus not being paid the extra they deserved. It emphasised that this could potentially impact
flight safety, among other things. It asserted that the LGS board were not complying with the
relevant laws, were infringing the legal rights of the LGS employees, and were mismanaging the
company’s funds. It emphasised the societal importance of the situation. It also stated the following:
“Even though the trade union has repeatedly attempted to find a constructive solution through
negotiations, the situation has become unmanageable [kļuvusi nevaldāma] and seriously endangers
both the quality of the provision of airline services [aeronavigācijas pakalpojumu nodrošināšanas
kvalitāti] and LGS’s ability to grow and compete in the international market.”
Ms Straume signed the relevant letter, addressed to the Minister of transport and another official, in
her capacity as chair.
In response 19 air-traffic controllers wrote to the LGS to distance themselves from the trade union’s
letter, allegedly under pressure from LGS.
The Civil Aviation Agency stated that the union’s pronouncements regarding flight safety had been
“extreme”, stating that they should have been raised through the proper channels.
The LGS board asked all trade-union members to sign letters stating that they could assure safety
standards, threatening that refusal to sign would lead to possible suspension. LGS warned the tradeunion members not to “seek help from outside”, as that would only harm them. It opened an internal investigation into the legality of statements around flight safety. Ms Straume was suspended from duties as a result, and she was denied access to the building. A large number of airtraffic controllers wrote letters expressing their support for Ms Straume. According to statements, staff who showed a positive attitude towards Ms Straume – for example by wishing her a happy birthday – were harassed by the company. At the end of her suspension she was made to “stand
idle”, that is to say to come to work but not carry out any of her duties.
The investigation ultimately recommended that she be fired. For certain periods during the dispute
LGS stopped paying her salary.
Ms Straume challenged the measures taken by LGS in court, and LGS lodged a counterclaim, seeking
full termination of her employment, citing its loss of trust in her due to her refusal to agree to the
new job description, and deliberate dissemination of untruths about LGS. The Riga City Kurzeme
District Court, following closed proceedings, allowed the counterclaim. The court stated that Ms
Straume had written the letter in her private capacity and had unnecessarily created a crisis with her
statements, casting doubt on her ability to perform her duties. The court concluded that it was
inappropriate to invoke human rights in her case. Ms Straume appealed.
LGS successfully asked the Riga Regional Court for a closed hearing owing to security concerns
around air-safety rules. The court upheld the first-instance judgment. The Supreme Court then
upheld the judgment following an appeal on points of law in February 2014. None of the judgments
in the case were delivered publicly.
Ms Straume was re-elected chair of the trade union on 1 February 2013.
Over the course of this dispute, concerns were raised separately in internal reports and by national
and international bodies as to the compliance of LGS with air-traffic control and safety regulations.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 11 read in the light of Article 10
The Court considered that in a trade union context the right to freedom of expression was closely
related to the right to freedom of association. As the focus of the complaint was that the applicant
had been penalised for carrying out trade-union activity and that the domestic courts had arbitrarily
denied the trade-union element of the dispute, the Court decided to examine it under Article 11
interpreted in the light of Article 10.
The Court expressed doubts that the steps taken to deal with the applicant had been covered by
law, but nevertheless it decided to proceed on the basis that the interference with her rights had
had a legal footing.
It held that the measures in question had the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others, in this
case Ms Straume’s employer.
The question remained as to whether the domestic authorities had struck a fair balance between
Ms Straume’s and her employer’s rights. It was relevant to consider the context within which the
statements had been made (including whether they formed part of a legitimate trade-union
activity); the nature of the statements (including whether the limits of acceptable criticisms were
crossed); the damage suffered by the employer or other persons; and the nature and severity of the
sanctions or other repercussions.
It found it established that had been signed by the applicant in her capacity as the trade union’s
chair and that it had been clearly part of trade-union activity about members’ work. It held that the
domestic courts had failed to assess whether inferences made in the letter had had a sufficient
factual basis and thus had in fact been acceptable criticism. They also had not verified the stated
facts that had formed the basis for those inferences, instead checking only whether the claimed
potential consequences had already occurred. The Court asserted that the letter had been a
professional assessment of the potential impact of the identified deficiencies that had had a
sufficient factual basis, and could not be seen as a gratuitous attack on LGS. The repercussions for
the applicant had been exceptionally harsh, and could very well have a chilling effect on trade-union
members. Furthermore, the Court judged that many of the actions of the LGS had been clearly
aimed at exerting pressure on those members.
Overall, the measures taken in this case had not been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued,
and had thus not been “necessary in a democratic society, in violation of Article 11 of the
Convention, read in the light of Article 10.
Article 6
The hearing on the merits of the case in the first-instance proceedings had been closed to the public
for “more efficient and successful administration of justice”. Conversely, the appellate court had
stated closed hearings had been “necessary for the protection of a State secret or a commercial
secret”, with the Supreme Court’s examining the case in written proceedings.
The Court was unable to conclude that closed proceedings had been necessary to protect the public
interests listed. The domestic courts had failed to relate the grounds cited to the actual case, in
particular to examine whether alleged sensitive information regarding flight safety had justified a
closed courtroom. The Court held that the need for public scrutiny had been particularly strong in
this case owing to the subject matter.
Furthermore, none of the judgments had been delivered publicly, nor had the full texts been made
public. Given that the Government had failed to justify the use of closed hearings, the methods by
which the public could access the decisions were also found to be insufficient.
There had been a violation of Article 6 owing to the failure to ensure the rights both to a public
hearing and to the public delivery of the judgments.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Latvia was to pay the applicant 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary
damage and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 11,562.28 in respect of costs and expenses.
