The judgment in *Mankus v. Lithuania* (application no. 25336/22) concerns the dismissal of a public servant from a statutory institution due to a past criminal conviction. The applicant, who had been convicted of perjury in 2011, was hired by the Public Security Service in 2012, dismissed in 2013, and subsequently reinstated in 2014, despite the authorities being aware of his criminal record. In 2019, he was dismissed again based on the same spent conviction, citing a lack of “irreproachable reputation.” The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the authorities’ inconsistent application of the law and their failure to account for their own prior decision to reinstate the applicant violated his right to private life. The Court concluded that the dismissal lacked the necessary consistency and legal protection against arbitrariness required under Article 8 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court ruled that the interference was not “necessary in a democratic society.”
### Structure and Provisions
The decision is structured as a standard Chamber judgment, moving from the factual background—highlighting the contradictory actions of the Lithuanian authorities—to the legal assessment under Article 8.
* **Main Provisions:** The Court examined the “quality of law” and the principle of “good governance.” It specifically analyzed whether the domestic authorities provided relevant and sufficient reasons for the dismissal.
* **Changes/Context:** The decision reflects the evolution of Lithuanian law, specifically noting the 2021 Constitutional Court ruling that struck down the lifetime ban on employment for individuals with spent convictions for intentional crimes. The ECtHR judgment builds upon this by focusing on the procedural failure of the state to act consistently, rather than just the substantive legality of the employment ban itself.
### Key Provisions for Legal Use
For legal practitioners and observers, the following points are the most critical:
1. **Principle of Good Governance:** The Court emphasized that when authorities make decisions affecting fundamental rights, they must act in a consistent manner. Reinstating an employee while aware of a conviction, only to dismiss them years later for that same conviction, constitutes a failure of this principle.
2. **Protection Against Arbitrariness:** The judgment clarifies that domestic law must afford adequate protection against arbitrary state action. If authorities fail to investigate or explain how a previous “error” in hiring occurred, they cannot later rely on that “error” to justify a sudden dismissal without a careful balancing of interests.
3. **Consistency in Administrative Practice:** The Court held that the domestic courts failed to provide “relevant and sufficient reasons” because they dismissed the fact that the authorities had previously accepted the applicant’s reputation as adequate for service. This establishes that the state cannot ignore its own past administrative decisions when they have created a legitimate expectation of continued employment.
***
**:** This decision is highly relevant to the Ukrainian legal context. Given the ongoing reforms in the Ukrainian civil service and the frequent application of “lustration” or “irreproachable reputation” requirements in statutory and law enforcement bodies, this judgment serves as a vital precedent. It underscores that even where high standards of integrity are required for public service, the state must ensure that its administrative actions remain consistent, predictable, and proportionate, preventing the arbitrary use of past convictions to terminate employment long after the fact.
