PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE THOMASSEN

I voted against the finding of the majority that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8.

I have some problems in examining the justification of the measures taken in respect of former employees of the KGB in terms of “discrimination”. The principle of non-discrimination, as it is recognised in European constitutions and in international treaties , refers above all to a denial of opportunities on grounds of personal choices in so far as these choices should be respected as elements of someone ’ s personality, such as religion, political opinion, sexual orientation and gender identity, or, on the contrary, on grounds of personal features in respect of which no choice at all can be made, such as sex, race, disability and age.

Working for the KGB in my opinion does not fall within either of these categories.

While it is true that former KGB employees were treated differently from “other persons in Lithuania who had not worked for the KGB” ( see paragraph 41 of the judgment ), this difference does not come within the scope of Article 14 in so far as it relates to access to particular professions, as the right to a free choice of profession is not guaranteed by the Convention ( see, mutatis mutandis , Thlimmenos [GC] , no. 34369/97, § 4 1 , ECHR 2000-IV ).

I do agree, however, that the application of the law, which in itself pursued a legitimate aim, was of such a general character that it affected the applicants ’ ability to develop relationships with the outside world as protected by Article 8 (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom , no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III) to a significant extent and therefore interfered with their private li ves . In view of the circumstances of the present applications, such as the fact that the law was applied many years after the applicants had left the KGB and many years after the date of Lithuania ’ s independence, without any account being taken of the special features of their individual cases, this interference cannot be considered proportionate. Consequently, Article 8 of the Convention has been violated.