Information Note on the Court’s case-law 36
November 2001
Knauth v. Germany (dec.) - 41111/98
Decision 22.11.2001 [Section III]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Civil servants dismissed for having collaborated with the Ministry of Security of the GDR and for having denied this: inadmissible
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Civil rights and obligations
Proceedings concerning the exclusion of a nursery school teacher from the civil service: Article 6 applicable
[This summary also covers the decision of the case Bester v. Germany, no. 42358/98, 22 November 2001.]
The two applicants, both former civil servants of the GDR, were integrated into the civil service of the FRG after the reunification of Germany. Both answered in the negative when asked in a questionnaire, prior to their integration, whether they had collaborated with the Ministry of Security of the GDR. An examination of the data contained in documents of the Ministry of Security revealed their past collaboration with that ministry. The first applicant, an infant school teacher, had been registered as a collaborator of the Ministry of Security between 1973 and 1979. The second applicant had effected his military service in the People’s Army of the GDR between 1971 and 1972 and had on that occasion signed a declaration undertaking to collaborate with the Ministry of Security. Both applicants were consequently barred from the civil service for having collaborated with the Ministry of Security of the GDR and, in particular, for having knowingly concealed that fact at the time of their integration into the civil service of the FRG. Their appeals to the Labour Court and the Federal Court of Justice were unsuccessful, as was their appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court.
Inadmissible under Article 8: the applicants’ dismissal was the consequence of the use of data, contained in documents belonging to the Ministry of State Security of the GDR, revealing facts which they had denied. The use of information about an individual’s political and/or private past could be considered to be an interference with private life. In the instant case, even if those measures were deemed to be an “interference” with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, they had been “prescribed by law”. The possibility of dismissing a civil servant for that reason was provided for by the Law on Protection against Unfair Dismissal, combined with Annex I to the German Unification Treaty, and by the Civil Code and the case-law of the Federal Labour Court and, lastly, by the Law on Documents held by the Department of State Security of the GDR. Those provisions were precise and accessible so that the applicants must have expected their past conduct and the question of possible collaboration to be looked into; lastly, the courts had not interpreted those provisions arbitrarily, but had clearly defined the applicable concepts and criteria on their examination of each case. With regard to the purpose of the measures, they had pursued a public-interest aim: the FRG had legitimately verified a posteriori the conduct of persons who, after reunification, had been integrated into its civil service, the members of which were the guarantors of the Constitution and of democracy. The measures in question had therefore pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others. Admittedly, the period of their collaboration with the GDR Ministry of State Security had, according to the applicants, occurred some ten or twenty years, respectively, before the time at which they had filled out the questionnaire; nevertheless, the applicants had been able to use legal remedies against the decisions dismissing them from their posts. The domestic courts had made a thorough examination of the allegations against the applicants and of their arguments and had concluded that the lack of sincerity and honesty in their replies meant that they could not continue to be employed in the civil service. Furthermore, the courts dealing with their case had referred to the Supreme Court’s established case-law on the subject. The penalties imposed, although heavy, had to be seen in the context of the general interest of German society, having regard to the exceptional historical context in which they had been integrated into the FRG civil service and the conditions set forth in the German Unification Treaty, of which the applicants must have been aware. Having regard, among other things, to the exceptional circumstances linked to German reunification, in so far as there had been interference, taking into consideration the margin of appreciation of the States, it had not been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued: manifestly ill-founded.
Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 (fair trial) with regard to the first applicant: that provision was applicable to teachers and therefore a fortiori to infant school teachers belonging to the civil service, as was the case here. The domestic proceedings examined as a whole had been fair: manifestly ill-founded.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy