Background
Vytautas Mankus, an internal-service officer, had been convicted of perjury in 2011 and paid a fine. His conviction was declared spent in 2013. Authorities initially admitted him to the service despite knowing he was a suspect, dismissed him in 2013 after discovering the final conviction, and reinstated him in September 2014 after receiving information about both the conviction and the ruling that it was spent.
In 2019, after roughly four and a half years of further service, the Public Security Service dismissed Mankus again for lacking an “irreproachable reputation” because of the intentional-crime conviction. Lithuanian courts upheld the dismissal, although the Supreme Administrative Court acknowledged that the conviction had been known before his 2014 reinstatement. Lithuania’s Constitutional Court later held unconstitutional the statutory lifetime bar on internal-service employment for anyone convicted of any intentional crime, regardless of whether the conviction was spent.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that the renewed dismissal interfered with Mankus’s private life, including his professional activity, and violated Article 8. The measure pursued legitimate aims—protecting national security, public safety, and the rights of others—but was not necessary in a democratic society.
The Court stressed that the authorities had attributed no particular weight to the conviction when admitting Mankus in 2012 and reinstating him in 2014, despite knowing or being expected to know of it. They did not investigate or promptly correct the alleged 2014 “error,” then relied on the same known fact to dismiss him years later. This inconsistent application of the statutory provisions failed the good-governance standard, left inadequate protection against arbitrariness, and was not supported by relevant and sufficient reasons or a careful balancing exercise.
Key Takeaways
- A dismissal from public statutory service can engage Article 8 where it materially affects an individual’s professional life.
- Authorities must act consistently and promptly when correcting their own employment-related mistakes, particularly where fundamental rights are affected.
- Known facts previously disregarded by an employer cannot later justify dismissal without adequate reasons and an individualized proportionality assessment.
Why It Matters
The judgment does not create a general right to public employment or prevent states from imposing demanding reputation requirements on internal-service officers. It requires, however, that such requirements be applied predictably, consistently, and proportionately in the individual case.
The Court awarded Mankus EUR 8,728 for pecuniary damage, EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 5,566 in costs and expenses. It also struck out his Article 6 complaint after he withdrew it.