Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 26652/02

The Government noted at the outset that, despite being formally similar in its actual circumstances to previous cases against Lithuania in which the issue concerned the employment restrictions on former KGB agents (see Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, ECHR 2004-VIII, and Rainys and Gasparavicius v. Lithuania, nos. 70665/01 and 74345/01, 7 April 2005), the present case was materially different.

70665/01 and 74345/01, 22 January 2004).

We would emphasise, however, that State-imposed restrictions on a person's opportunities to find employment in the private sector by reason of a lack of loyalty to the State cannot be justified from the Convention perspective in the same manner as restrictions on access to employment in the public service (see Rainys and Gasparavicius v. Lithuania, nos. 70665/01 and 74345/01, § 36, 7 April 2005).

Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 26652/02

The Government noted at the outset that, despite being formally similar in its actual circumstances to previous cases against Lithuania in which the issue concerned the employment restrictions on former KGB agents (see Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, ECHR 2004-VIII, and Rainys and Gasparavicius v. Lithuania, nos. 70665/01 and 74345/01, 7 April 2005), the present case was materially different.

55480/00 and 59330/00, 21 October 2003), where it found that court proceedings concerning employment restrictions imposed on former KGB officers could not be regarded as involving "a criminal charge" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

We agree with the Chamber's finding in paragraph 30 of the judgment that the restrictions imposed on the applicant's employment prospects under the Law, and hence the difference in treatment applied to him, pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country and the rights and freedoms of others (see Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, §§ 52-55, ECHR 2004-VIII).

Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 26652/02

According to the Court's case-law, a difference of treatment is discriminatory if it "has no objective and reasonable justification", that is, if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or if there is not a "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 33, Series A no. 31).

Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 26652/02

In reviewing whether it has been observed, it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of each individual case (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 35, Series A no. 40).

Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 26652/02

Nevertheless, the Court recalls that while the Court's duty, according to Article 19 of the Convention, is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 45).