Published on 20 September 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 51451/19 Katrin PILL against Germany lodged on 30 September 2019 communicated on 31 August 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the termination of the applicant’s employment contract as a veterinarian at the Göppingen Veterinary Inspection Office .

Since 2006 the applicant was in charge to monitor the hygienic and animal welfare standards in a large-scale slaughterhouse. In this context, she reported repeatedly shortcomings to the slaughterhouse management, her supervisor and the administrative offence unit of the Göppingen County Administration. Additionally, she complained that she had been harassed by slaughterhouse employees.

The applicant was of the view that her reports were not followed up adequately, which led in turn to conflicts with her employer. She filed therefore - albeit unsuccessfully - a supervision complaint ( Fachaufsichts-beschwerde ) to the regional government ( Regierungspräsidium ) arguing that the Veterinary Inspection Office tolerated serious irregularities in the slaughterhouse and did not sufficiently support the veterinarians in the performance of their tasks.

In the course of the conflict with her employer, the applicant was transferred to a different slaughterhouse against her will and ultimately dismissed.

On 9 May 2014, during labour court proceedings, the Court of Appeal upheld the reasoning of the first instance court finding that the applicant’s dismissal had been legally void. Nevertheless, upon the application of the employer, the court terminated the applicant’s employment contract by 31 December 2013 in return of 6,644 EUR in compensation payments. It found that a future beneficial collaboration between the parties could not be expected because the applicant’s submissions during the labour court proceedings demonstrated continuous disloyal conduct by the applicant towards her employer. Even though the regional government in the supervision proceedings had not found any misconduct by the Veterinary Inspection Office, the applicant had continued to accuse her employer of flagrant misuse of power and of having debased her.

The applicant relies on Article 10 of the Convention alone and read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention arguing that her right to freedom of expression was interfered with. Furthermore, her submissions in the labour court proceedings against her dismissal were necessary to defend her interests, which were also interests of the general public.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?

In particular, did the termination of the employment contract by the Court of Appeal on account of the applicant’s written statements during the labour court proceedings amount to a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression?

In this context, to what extent did the applicant’s statements enjoy protection by her right to defend herself against the dismissal? Additionally, to what extent was it relevant that the supervisory body of the regional government had not found any misconduct by the Göppingen Veterinary Inspection Office?

Has the chilling effect it may have on other employees to defend themselves in labour court proceedings been sufficiently taken into consideration?

Was it relevant for the labour court proceedings that the signalling of the alleged shortcomings in the slaughterhouse and the alleged misconduct of the Veterinary Inspection Office was in the public interest?

Has the severity of the sanction imposed on the applicant been sufficiently taken into consideration, including with regard to the amount of the compensation payments?

2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?