Množične politične čistke so kršitev vladavine prava

Vlada Roberta Goloba je zahtevala pripravo seznamov vseh javnih uslužbencev, ki so se v času prejšnje vlade (od leta 2020) zaposlili, napredovali ali bili premeščeni, da bi ukrepala proti njim, že narejene spiske pa javnosti prikrivajo, čeprav je informacijska pooblaščenka javno opozorila, da gre za informacije javnega značaja, hkrati vladajoči pripravljajo zakonodajo, ki bi omogočila predčasno zamenjavo nadzornikov, direktorjev in urednikov na RTVS, predčasne zamenjave nadzornikov in uprav DUTB, SDH in podrejenih podjetij.

Lahko, ker imajo večino, odločijo karkoli?

Leon Cizelj Foto: STA , Že jutri pa bodo poslanci odločali o bliskoviti predčasni odstavitvi dveh članov nadzornega sveta SDH, za katera je vlada razglasila, da sta v nazornem svetu mimo zakona in zato zahteva takojšnjo odstavitev mag. Boža Emeršiča in dr. Leona Cizlja v državnem zboru. Pri Cizlju vlada trdi, da že ob imenovanju ni izpolnjeval pogojev, ker bi naj ne imel desetih let ustreznih izkušenj. A ob imenovanju pred letom se ni nihče pritožil, da bi bilo kaj narobe. In tudi zdaj ni o ničemer odločilo sodišče. Pri političnem odstavljanju, ki smo mu priča, pa Cizelj ni imel nobenih možnosti obrambe. O domnevnem kršenju zakonov Emeršiča, Cizlja in prejšnjega državnega zbora vlada in parlament odločata povsem politično: po logiki, da lahko, ker ima nova koalicija večino, izglasujejo karkoli. Cizelj je bil
predsednik Upravnega odbora Agencije za radioaktivne odpadke ter podpredsednik Nadzornih svetov družb Gen Energija, d. o. o., in ELES, d. o. o. Ima izkušnje iz vodenja v mednarodnem okolju, saj je bil predsednik upravnega odbora Evropske mreže za jedrsko izobraževanje (združuje več kot 50 evropskih univerz in glavne jedrske deležnike, tudi industrijo), predsednik Evropskega združenja za atomsko energijo, član Upravnega odbora Evropske platforme za trajnostno jedrsko energijo ter predsednik sekcije za jedrsko inženirstvo pri Ameriški zvezi strojnih inženirjev. Nova vlada mu priznava izkušnje le iz nadzorništva Gen energije in Elesa.

A evropsko pravo ščiti zaposlene in tudi nosilce mandatov v javnem sektorju, izhaja iz obširne in ustaljene prakse Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice (ESČP). Uradniki in funkcionarji imajo pravico do sodnega varstva, je sodišče poudarilo v sodbah zoper Poljsko in Madžarsko. Govorili smo z dr. Winfriedom Huckom, profesorjem na Fakulteti za evropsko pravo v Brunswicku v Nemčiji in na univerzi Tongji v Šanghaju ter dr. Marcom Antoniom Simonellijem z Univerze v Barceloni.

Pravica do sodišča je osnovna pravica delavcev in nosilcev funkcij

Pravico, da se ob predčasni odstavitvi obrnejo na sodišče in da mandat traja do pravnomočne odločitve sodišča, nimajo le zaposleni, ampak tudi nosilci drugih položajev. To velja za člane sodnega sveta, aktivne vojaške častnike, sodnike, uradnike in tajnice pri policiji, v parlamentu in na veleposlaništvih ter ostale, poudarja sodišče v Strasbourgu.

Le v redkih primerih, ko država izpolni dva pogoja, lahko predčasno prekine mandat nosilcu položaja. "Če država ni izpolnila teh dveh pogojev, uživa nosilec položaja cel kup pravic iz 6. člena evropske konvencije človekovih pravic," nam je pojasnil Simonelli, ki vodi evropski projekt raziskovanja populizma v Evropi.

"Prvi pogoj je, da mora domača zakonodaja izrecno izključiti dostop do sodišča za zadevno delovno mesto ali kategorijo osebja," je zapisal Simonelli. "Drugi pogoj je, da mora država dokazati, da je predmet spora povezan z izvrševanjem državne oblasti oziroma da obstaja posebna vez med oblastjo in javnim uslužbencem," še dodaja. Da bi država lahko predčasno brez sodnega varstva prekinila mandat ali zaposlitev, bi morala biti izpolnjena oba pogoja. 

Simonelli nam je naštel celo vrsto sodb, v katerih je ESČP potrdilo ta načela, med njimi Oleksandr Volkov proti Ukrajini, Pridatčenko proti Rusiji, Savino proti Italiji, Šikić proti Hrvaški, Cudak proti Litvi, Vasilčenko proti Rusiji, Bilgen proti Turčiji, Baka proti Madžarski. 

Mandat daje pravico do zaključka mandata, izjeme le redke

ESČP je leta 2007 razvilo test, s katerim se ocenjuje, kdaj država lahko predčasno odstavi nosilca položaja ali prekine mandat. Sodišče je odločilo, da so edini, ki ne uživajo pravic s sodbe Vilho Eskelinen, posebni javni uslužbenci, katerih naloge so značilne za posebne dejavnosti javne službe za zaščito splošnih interesov države, je poudaril Huck, ki je tudi sodelavec Univerze Cambridge.

"Te izjeme pridejo v poštev za zelo majhen krog javnih uslužbencev, ki so posebno povezani z državo. To so tisti javni uslužbenci, ki so vezani na močno lojalnost ali imajo posebne pristojnosti z interesom države v varnostnih zadevah, tajnih službah, policiji in vojski," je še dodal. 

Odgovori in pojasnila obeh profesorjev so bili v celoti v angleškem jeziku, v katerem je komunikacija potekala, in sicer takšni:

Marco Antonio Simonelli: ESČP jamči pravico do poštenega sojenje

Marco  Antonio

What is the Vilho Eskelinen test?

The test has been elaborated by the European Court of Human Rights ("ECtHR"), in the homonymous judgment of 2007, to assess whether a civil servant, in a dispute against the State, can rely on the procedural guarantees enshrined by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR"), most notably the right of access to a tribunal. Previous to this judgment, the European Court of Human Rights employed a functional approach, according to which some categories of civil servants - such as armed forces - in light of the special bond of trust and loyalty existing with the state, were automatically excluded from enjoying the guarantees of the right to a fair trial under the ECHR. The Vilho Eskelinen test instead establishes a presumption that those guarantees will apply, and it is the respondent government that shall demonstrate that the national interest justifies the compression of the civil servant’s right to a fair trial.

What procedural guarantees are assured for office holders by the Vilho Eskelinen judgment?

The Vilho Eskelinen test does not provide specific procedural guarantees for office holders. Rather it sets out two conditions that, if fulfilled, exclude the possibility for the civil servant to go before a tribunal. Conversely, if one of the two cumulative condition is not fulfilled, the full bunch of rights deriving from Article 6 ECHR will be enjoyed by the office holder.

The first condition is that domestic law must have expressly excluded access to a tribunal for the post or category of staff in question. Therefore, if the applicant had access to a court under national law, Article 6 applies (even to active army officers, Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia). Also, non-judicial bodies, such as judicial councils (Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine) and parliamentary bodies (Savino and others v. Italy) may be qualified as a “court”, thus bringing in the procedural guarantees of Article 6 ECHR. The second condition is that the exclusion must be objectively justified in light of the State’s interests. This means in first place that, in principle, ordinary labour disputes, such as those relating to salaries, allowances, and similar entitlement, shall comply with the principles of the right to a fair trial. In order to exclude the applicability of procedural guarantees, the State is obliged to show that the subject matter of the dispute, is related to the exercise of State power or that it has called into question the special bond between the civil servant and the State.

In light of this latter criterion, the Court declared Article 6(1) ECHR to be applicable to proceedings for unfair dismissal instituted by an embassy employee (a secretary and switchboard operator in the Polish embassy: Cudak v. Lithuania) a senior police officer (Šikić v. Croatia) or an army officer in the military courts (Vasilchenko v. Russia). Also, in a 2021 judgment, the Court declared the applicability of the right to a fair trial to cases of transfer decisions of judges (Bilgen v. Turkey), as well as to the dismissal of the president of the Supreme Court contained in a constitutional amendment (Baka v. Hungary), because excluding members of the judiciary from the guarantees of Article could not be justified on objective grounds in the State’s interest.

All in all, the threshold to fulfil this second criterion appears rather hard to be met, meaning that there is a strong presumption that office holders will fully enjoy their right to a fair trial in labour disputes against the State.

Winfried Huck: Izpolnjena morata biti dva pogoja 

What is the Vilho Eskelinen test?

Winfried Huck The Vilho Eskelinen Test refers to a new approach of the application of Art. 6(1) European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which was found by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with the judgment "Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC] - 63235/00, Judgment 19.4.2007 [GC]".

The Court had ruled that the only disputes excluded from the scope of Article 6(1) European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were specific public servants whose duties typified the specific activities of the public service for protecting the general interests of the State or other public authorities. A manifest example of such activities was provided by the armed forces and the police. It is quite clear, that this exclusion of the scope of Art 6 EHCR must be seen very restrictive an should apply in particular in  a very small range of public servants with a specific bond to the state, like servants in the  ministry of defence or of the interior and armed forces and the police.

The State is also obliged to demonstrate  that the subject matter of the dispute in issue is related to the exercise of State power. In principle there is no justification for the exclusion from the guarantees of Article 6 of ordinary labour disputes, such as those relating to salaries, allowances or similar entitlements, on the basis of the special nature of relationship between the particular civil servant and the State in question.

In summary, while access to court, guaranteed by Art. 6 ECHR, had only seen one exception of public service employees with civil servant status (Pellegrin v. France of 1999), the ECtHR took a new approach, according to which the defendant state must fulfil two conditions in order to rely on the plaintiff's civil servant status to exclude the application of Art. 6 ECHR. This "Vilho Eskelinen test" developed by the Court provides that:

1) The State must have expressly excluded access to a court in its national law for the post or category of person concerned.

2) The exclusion must be justified on objective grounds in the interest of the State. In this context, it is not merely a matter of whether the plaintiff works in a sector or department involved in the exercise of public-law powers or that there is a "special relationship of trust and loyalty" between the civil servant and the state as employer. Rather, the precise exercise of the powers and the employment relationship had to be assessed contextually.

Accordingly, an exclusion of access to court under the guise of Art. 6 ECHR for civil servants was in principle no longer viable.

What procedural guarantees are assured for office holders by the Vilho Eskelinen judgment?

Procedural guarantees are basically derived from the national procedural rules. In the Vilho Eskelinen ruling, the following procedural guarantees were established: oral hearing in a reasonable time. However, it did not rule on further procedural guarantees in these proceedings or excluded them due to the specific context. Basically, all procedural guarantees are assured with one exemption concerning those public servants who are in a strong bond of loyalty or holding specific competences close to interest of the state in security matters (such as police officers, secret service, armed forces etc.).