Published on 28 July 2025
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 678/25
Kristjan KOZOLE against Slovenia
and 5 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 9 July 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants, whose particulars are set out in the Appendix, were employed by public entities or publicly owned companies in Slovenia.
In 2021, during the COVID-19 crisis, all but the applicant in application no. 1742/25 were dismissed from their employment because of their refusal to comply with the COVID-19 pandemic related requirements set out in the 2021 Decree on the manner of meeting the condition of recovery, vaccination and testing to curb the spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus infections (that is a proof of recent recovery from COVID-19 infection, negative COVID-19 test result or a proof of up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination) (Odlok o načinu izpolnjevanja pogoja prebolevnosti, cepljenja in testiranja za zajezitev širjenja okužb z virusom SARS-CoV-2, “the 2021 Decree”). The applicant in application no. 1742/25 received a warning before a dismissal and subsequently went on leave in order to avoid being dismissed.
The applicants challenged the work-related sanctions (see the attached Appendix) before the domestic courts, arguing, inter alia, that COVID-19 related requirements and their consequent dismissal for non-compliance with them lacked legal and scientific basis and amounted to unlawful and disproportionate interference with their constitutional rights, including their right to work and social security. They moreover invoked the right to a fair trial, effective remedy, data protection and equal treatment before the law. Their requests for leave to appeal on points of law and their constitutional complaints were dismissed as not requiring an examination of the case on the merits.
The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to address their main arguments and evidence in violation of their right to a fair trial.
They further complain about having been required to comply with COVID-19 related measures as a condition for preforming their work and about the subsequently imposed work-related sanctions, arguing that they were unlawful, unnecessary, imposed a disproportionate burden on them and were not preceded by consideration of less restrictive alternatives. They also argue that the sanctions in questions have had adverse consequences for them, including an inability to meet basic needs and/or negative psychological effects.
Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that their employer collected and processed their personal and health data – which underpinned the sanctions – without their consent, in the absence of a proper legal basis, and in a manner that constituted a disproportionate interference with their private life.
Under Article 14 of the Convention the applicants complain about discrimination on the grounds that they – as unvaccinated persons – were required to regularly test in order to have access to, inter alia, their employment, as opposed to those who were vaccinated, despite the evidence to the effect that vaccinated people were able to transmit COVID-19. The differential treatment of nonvaccinated individuals therefore lacked any justification.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention with respect to the applicants’ obligation to comply with the COVID-19 pandemic related requirements set out in the 2021 Decree as a condition for preforming their work and their ensuing work-related sanctions?
2. Have the applicants suffered discrimination, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with the above stated complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention?
3. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, with respect to the collection and processing of their personal and health-related data by their employer? In particular, was the legal basis for collection and processing of such data sufficiently clear and foreseeable and accompanied by adequate safeguards against arbitrary interference (see, mutatis mutandis, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 81, 10 March 2009)?
4. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
Employer that imposed the sanction in question
Date and type of sanction
1.
678/25
Kozole
v. Slovenia
28/12/2024
Kristjan KOZOLE
1983
Celje
Slovenian
Jernej KOKALJ
Ministry of Defence – Slovenian army
21 October 2021, dismissal for misconduct (odpoved iz kridvnega razloga)
2.
803/25
Supančič
v. Slovenia
27/12/2024
Daniel SUPANČIČ
1984
Dobova
Slovenian
Tomaž URBANČIČ
Slovenian Railways
15 October 2021, extraordinary termination of contract (izredna odpoved)
3.
1742/25
Pajić
v. Slovenia
03/01/2025
Tomislav PAJIĆ
1964
Jesenice na Dolenjskem
Slovenian
Tomaž URBANČIČ
Electro Celje
15 September 2021, warning before dismissal for misconduct
4.
1744/25
Čubej
v. Slovenia
04/01/2025
Urška ČUBEJ
1977
Ljubljana
Slovenian
Dejan KOKALJ
Student dormitory Bežigrad Ljubljana
5 May 2021, dismissal for misconduct (odpoved iz kridvnega razloga)
5.
1748/25
Oblak v. Slovenia
03/01/2025
Mitja OBLAK
1982
Domžale
Slovenian
Tomaž URBANČIČ
Post of Slovenia
7 October 2021, dismissal for misconduct (odpoved iz kridvnega razloga)
6.
12950/25
Može v. Slovenia
10/04/2025
Nataša MOŽE
1969
Senožeče
Slovenian
Tomaž PULKO
Ministry of the Interior – Slovenian police
29 October 2021, dismissal for misconduct (odpoved iz kridvnega razloga)