Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 168

November 2013

Jokšas v. Lithuania - 25330/07

Judgment 12.11.2013 [Section II]

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom of expression

Dismissal from the armed forces at retirement age, but allegedly on ground of personal opinions: no violation

Facts – In 2002 the applicant was employed by the Lithuanian armed forces on a five-year contract which, under specific circumstances, could be rescinded even before the expiry date. In 2006 a Lithuanian newspaper published an article in which the applicant criticised new legislation for inadequately protecting the rights of servicemen in disciplinary proceedings. An internal investigation was initiated, but was eventually discontinued on the ground that the applicant had not violated military discipline. In 2006 the applicant’s contract was terminated because he had reached retirement age, in accordance with the legal provisions in force. The applicant challenged this decision before the administrative courts, alleging that he had been discriminated against on grounds of his personal opinions, and asked the courts to obtain and analyse evidence of other soldiers in his battalion who should also have been dismissed on grounds of age. The applicant’s complaints were dismissed in a decision that was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court.

Law – Article 6 § 1

(a)  Applicability – The Government argued that Article 6 was not applicable to the applicant’s case, because the dispute at issue could not be regarded as “civil” within the meaning of that provision. The Court noted that the domestic law provided the applicant with the right of access to court, which the applicant had exercised, claiming the right, which was “civil” in nature, to continue his professional military service until the expiry of his existing contract. The dispute before the domestic courts had been genuine and serious and the result of the proceedings directly decisive for the right in question. Article 6 was thus applicable.

Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously).

(b)  Merits – The Court noted th