The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has published its judgment in the case of “Aghajanian against Armenia.”
According to Iravaban.net, the case concerns the applicant’s (Ishkhan Aghajanian’s) dismissal from a private factory on the grounds that he disclosed confidential information about his employer during an interview with a journalist. The applicant relied on Article 10 of the Convention (Freedom of Expression).
It is noted that since 2003, the applicant had worked as a senior researcher at the Nairit factory, which produced various chemical products. The ownership rights of the factory were divided between a private company (which owned 90% of the shares) and the Government (which owned 10%).
According to an order issued by the factory on July 9, 2007, the amount of employees’ salaries was considered an essential trade secret. A special clause regarding the obligation to maintain confidentiality about salary amounts had to be added to each employee’s employment contract.
On April 22, 2010, one of the local newspapers published an article featuring an interview with the applicant, where he discussed certain deficiencies related to the factory’s operations.
On May 19, 2010, the factory’s executive director dismissed the applicant without notice. In his decision, the director noted that an article about the factory was published in the newspaper on April 22, 2010, based on the applicant’s unfounded claims.
In particular, the applicant had spread false information about scientific work and testing, as well as about factory workers’ salaries, thereby violating several articles of the Labor Code. The director concluded that this was sufficient for the factory to lose trust in the applicant as an employee and terminate his employment contract on that basis.
According to the ECHR, the applicant challenged the dismissal in civil courts and, among other things, argued that the dismissal order was illegal since it did not specify which provision of the Labor Code he had violated. Furthermore, he had never been informed about the definitions of state, professional, or commercial secrets related to the factory.
The applicant requested 15,970 euros in material damages, which constituted his salary from the date of dismissal until September 10, 2016 – his retirement age, and 10,000 euros for non-material damages.
Note that the Government disputed these claims, and the ECHR’s published judgment emphasized that the Court sees no causal link between the violation found and the alleged material damage, therefore rejecting this claim. At the same time, making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awarded the applicant 4,500 euros in respect of non-material damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
The application was declared admissible, and the ECHR ruled that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (Freedom of Expression), and accordingly decided:
- a) the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
- i) EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-material damage, to be paid to the applicant,
- ii) EUR 1,600 (one thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the bank account of IPAS NGO;
- b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement, simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
The Court dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
The judgment entered into force on January 8.
Mariam Shahnazaryan
