Communicated on 18 June 2020
Published on 6 July 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 33134/18
Lyudmila Aleksandrovna SHIBAYEVA
against Russia
lodged on 27 June 2018
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Lyudmila Aleksandrovna Shibayeva, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Cherepovets, Vologda Region.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant, a sergeant at the time, served in the federal firefighting service as a telephone operator.
The applicant’s husband, a lieutenant-colonel, was the deputy head of the firefighting division in which the applicant served.
On 6 June 2016 the applicant’s husband applied for a transfer in order to avoid the conflict of interest. It appears that the management of the service was unable to reassign the applicant’s husband and he continued to serve in the same division.
In September 2016 the prosecutor’s office conducted a compliance inspection in the division and established serious violations of the anti‑corruption laws. Subsequently, the Regional Department of the Ministry of Emergency Situations conducted an internal inquiry which established, inter alia, that the applicant had been hired in 2013 by the head of the firefighting service upon her husband’s request. Contrary to the established procedure, the head of the service had failed to inform the employer of that fact. The applicant’s husband was dismissed for the loss of trust and confidence.
On 5 November 2016 the applicant was dismissed for loss of trust and confidence. The applicant brought a court action challenging the lawfulness of her dismissal. She argued that her husband had not been her direct superior and that her marriage should not be a reason for the dismissal. Lastly, she submitted that, after her husband’s dismissal, the conflict of interest, if any, had ceased to exist.
On 23 November 2016 the Cherepovets Town Court of the Vologda Region refused to reinstate the applicant’s husband and found his dismissal to be lawful. The relevant judgment came into effect on 27 January 2017.
On 3 March 2017 the Town Court refused to reinstate the applicant in the firefighting service. The court established that the applicant had failed to take measures to resolve the conflict of interest resulting from her and her husband’s service in the same firefighting division and that her dismissal had been in full compliance with applicable legislation. The applicant appealed arguing that her dismissal had been arbitrary.
On 31 May 2017 the Vologda Regional Court upheld the judgment of 3 March 2017 on appeal.
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged the first cassation appeal. She has not informed the Court of the outcome of the proceedings.
On 20 December 2017 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the applicant’s second cassation appeal. The applicant did not attend the hearing and received a copy of the relevant judgment on 3 January 2018.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about her dismissal from public service.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Does Article 8 apply in the present case (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 92-117, 25 September 2018)?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy