Βρήκαμε την παρακάτω
ανακοίνωση,
αναμενόμενη για εμάς,
που έχει ως είδηση,
την καταδίκη της Ελλάδας
από το Δικαστήριο των Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων.
αναμενόμενη για εμάς,
που έχει ως είδηση,
την καταδίκη της Ελλάδας
από το Δικαστήριο των Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων.
Ας πούμε λίγα λόγια για την υπόθεση,
Οροθετικός
άνδρας απολύθηκε από τη δουλειά του γιατί φοβήθηκαν οι υπόλοιποι
εργαζόμενοι όταν έμαθαν ότι ήταν Οροθετικός, ότι θα κολήσουν AIDS!!!
Προσέφυγε στην Ελληνική Διακιοσύνη και από εκεί αρχίζει η περιπέτειά του.
Προσέφυγε στην Ελληνική Διακιοσύνη και από εκεί αρχίζει η περιπέτειά του.
Η ελληνική Δικαιοσύνη, είχε καταδικάσει πρωτοβάθμια και αθωώσει στη συνέχεια την επιχείρηση.
ΞΑΝΑΛΕΜΕ μετά από καταγγελία των εργαζομένων ότι θα κινδύνευαν να κολλήσουν από την
κοινή χρήση των κοινόχρηστων χώρων και ειδικά αυτού της τουαλέτας.!!
Τότε, είχαμε, σχολιάσει μεταξύ των υπολοίπων που είχαμε καταγγείλει
ότι:-
ο μόνος τρόπος να κολλήσεις από την τουαλέτα
είναι αυτός του «να μην έχει σηκωθεί ο προηγούμενος …και αν !!»
Είχαμε πεί ακόμα ότι με αυτή της την απόφαση η Ελληνική Δικαιοσύνη είχε αποδείξει
τις Ιατροφοβικές της αδυναμίες,
την άγνοια της για τα βασικά πράγματα αγωγής Υγείας,
και ΦΥΣΙΚΑ αυτή η απόφαση αναδεικνύει το τεράστιο ΘΕΣΜΙΚΟ κενό από την πλευρά του Υπουργείου Υγείας,
αυτό της ενημέρωσης και της κοινωνικής ευαισθητοποίησης όχι όπως είχαν επιλέξει με καίριες παρεμβάσεις ενημέρωσης της τοπικής εκάστοτε κοινωνίας,
αλλά με συνεχή θεσμική παρουσία από τον χωρο της εκαπίδευσης μέχρι αυτό της δικαιοσύνης.. με στόχο την αντιμετώπιση των ρατσιστικών τέτοιου τύπου φαινομένων.
τις Ιατροφοβικές της αδυναμίες,
την άγνοια της για τα βασικά πράγματα αγωγής Υγείας,
και ΦΥΣΙΚΑ αυτή η απόφαση αναδεικνύει το τεράστιο ΘΕΣΜΙΚΟ κενό από την πλευρά του Υπουργείου Υγείας,
αυτό της ενημέρωσης και της κοινωνικής ευαισθητοποίησης όχι όπως είχαν επιλέξει με καίριες παρεμβάσεις ενημέρωσης της τοπικής εκάστοτε κοινωνίας,
αλλά με συνεχή θεσμική παρουσία από τον χωρο της εκαπίδευσης μέχρι αυτό της δικαιοσύνης.. με στόχο την αντιμετώπιση των ρατσιστικών τέτοιου τύπου φαινομένων.
Δυστυχώς και τότε στηλιτεύοντας τα θεσμικά κενά και τις παραλέιψεις κ καταγγέλλοντας τες όπως και
τώρα, επιβεβαιωθήκαμε!
Δυστυχώς, ξανά, τα κενά στην πληροφόρηση για το τι συμβαίνει να είναι έν@ πολίτ@ ΟΡΟΘΕΤΙΚΟΣ, δηλαδή να ζεί με το hiv ή το aids, είναι τεράστια και οι όποιες προσπάθειες έχουν γίνει θεσμικά αλλά και εθελοντικά, έχουν αποτύχει..
- Η ρεβανσιστικού τύπου πολιτικές αποφάσεις της εκάστοτε Πολιτικής Ηγεσίας (2001-2009) και ειδικά αυτών που τη διαχειριστήκαν από την αρχή του ΜΝΗΜΟΝΙΟΥ Ι (2010) και μετά, για τη χάραξη κοινής στρατηγικής σε ένα Εθνικό Σχέδιο Δράσης, απέδειξαν το πόσο επικίνδυνοι και καιροσκόποι υπήρξαν για το χώρο της Δημόσιας Υγείας και ειδικά αυτού γύρω από την HIV/AIDS λοίμωξη, επιστρέφοντας τη χώρα στο Μεσαίωνα.
Τρανό
παράδειγμα η πολιτική των τελευταίων 2 ετών που έχει επίσημα δείξει η
ελληνική πολιτεία ειδικά με την εφαρμογή της περίφημης Υγειονομικής
Διάταξης 39Α, είδαμε επίσημα 2 φορές, τουλάχιστον, τις αρχές του
Υπουργείου Υγείας και τα συμβουλευτικά του όργανα ΕΚΕΠΥ και ΚΕΕΛΠΝΟ, να
συναινούν με αυτήν και να τη στηρίζουν.
Οι ελληνικές αρχές σε όλες τις βαθμίδες της με πρωτοστάτες
από τον Ιατρικό Κόσμο, τους περίφημους
Λοιμωξάδες! ακολούθησαν τον Σύγχρονης Σπιναλόγκας
τρόπο αντιμετώπισης των Ασθενών με την HIV Λοίμωξη που είναι αυτός, της κλειστής ομάδας γιατρών που θα παρακολουθούν
ΑΥΤΟΥΣ ΤΟΥ Σ ΑΣΘΕΝΕΙΣ ΕΙΔΙΚΑ!! και παράλληλα θα είναι σε «ΕΙΔΙΚΟΥΣ ΧΩΡΟΥΣ» τις ΜΕΛ
Μονάδες Ειδικών Λοιμώξεων.
ΌΣΟΙ ΤΟΛΜΗΣΑΜΕ ΝΑ ΦΩΝΑΞΟΥΜΕ ΤΟ ΑΝΤΙΘΕΤΟ, ΒΡΕΘΗΚΑΜΕ ΑΠΕΝΤΑΝΤΙ
ΣΕ ΟΡΓΑΝΩΜΕΝΗ ΕΠΙΘΕΣΗ ΛΑΣΠΗΣ ΚΑΙ Π[ΑΡΑΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΗΣΗΣ, ΑΚΟΜΑ Κ ΑΠΟ «ΑΚΤΙΒΙΣΤΕΣ» ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑΣ.
Εμείς συνεχίζουμε στο δρόμο των αγώνων μας.
Σας παραθέτουμε το δελτίο τύπου στα αγγλικά η απόφαση έχει
βγεί στα Γαλλικά και είναι διαθέσιμη πατώντας το σχετικό λίνκ
Καλή ανάγνωση..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Press Release
issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 283 (2013)
03.10.2013
In
today’s Chamber judgment in the case of I.B.
v. Greece (application no. 552/10), which is not final 1, the European
Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation
of Article 8 (right
to respect for
private and family
life) taken together
with Article 14 (prohibition of
discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case
concerned the dismissal
of an HIV-positive
employee in response
to pressure from
other employees in the company.
The Court
considered that the
applicant had been
a victim of
discrimination on account
of his being HIV-positive.
The
domestic courts had based their decision to reject his complaint about his
dismissal on clearly inaccurate
information, namely the
contagious nature of
his illness.
They had
provided insufficient
explanation of how
the employer’s interests
outweighed those of the applicant,
thus failing to strike the correct balance between the rights of both
parties.
The applicant
had been a
victim of discrimination on
account of his
health status, in
breach of Article 8 taken
together with Article 14.
Principal facts
The
applicant, I.B., is a Greek national who was born in 1980 and lives in Athens (Greece).
The
applicant had been working since 2001 in a company which manufactures
jewellery.
In January
2005 he told
three of his
colleagues about his
fear that he
had contracted the
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV);
this was subsequently
confirmed by a
test. Shortly afterwards
his employer received a
letter from those
three colleagues, indicating that
the applicant had
AIDs and that the
company ought to
dismiss him. Information
about the applicant’s
state of health
began to circulate throughout
the company, which
employed 70 people.
The
staff called for his dismissal.
The
employer invited an
occupational-health doctor to
speak to the
employees; he tried
to reassure them by explaining
the precautions to be taken.
On 21 February 2005 33 of the company’s employees sent
the director a letter inviting her to dismiss the applicant
in order to “preserve their
health and their
right to work”.
On 23 February
2005 the employer dismissed
the applicant, paying
him the allowance
provided for under
Greek law.
Shortly
afterwards the applicant was reemployed by another company.
The
applicant brought proceedings before the Athens Court of First Instance.
1
Under
Articles 43 and 44
of the Convention,
this Chamber judgment is
not final. During the three-month period following
its delivery, any
party may request
that the case
be referred to
the Grand Chamber
of the Court. If
such a request
is made, a
panel of five
judges considers whether
the case deserves
further examination.
In
that event, the
Grand Chamber will
hear the case
and deliver a
final judgment.
If
the referral request is refused,
the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a
judgment becomes final,
it is transmitted
to the Committee
of Ministers of the
Council of Europe
for supervision of its
execution.
Further
information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
On
13 June 2006
the court held
that the dismissal
had been illegal.
It found that
the termination of the
applicant’s contract had
been based solely
on his health
status, and emphasised
that the employer’s attitude
amounted to a
misuse of its
powers. The court
noted that the
employer had dismissed the
applicant in order
to preserve what
it erroneously believed
to be an
issue of peaceful working relations
within the company.
Lastly, the court
held that it
was not necessary
to order that the applicant be reinstated, as he had
found new employment in the meantime.
The
employer and the applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment.
By
a judgment of
29 January 2008,
the court of
appeal acknowledged that,
in dismissing the applicant, the employer had
given in to
pressure from staff
members, with a
view to preserving
a good working environment
within the company.
The court
of appeal noted
that the fears
of the company’s employees
were scientifically unfounded,
as the occupational-health doctor
had explained to them.
The
court of appeal stressed that where an employee’s illness did not have an
adverse impact on the employment relationship
or the smooth functioning of the company (absenteeism, reduced capacity to work),
illness could not
serve as an
objective justification for
termination of an
employment contract.
Yet
to date the applicant had not been absent from his work and no absence on
grounds of ill-heath was foreseeable
in the immediate
future.
The court
of appeal noted
that the applicant’s health could not have a
detrimental effect on the smooth functioning of the company in the future.
The applicant
lodged an appeal
on points of
law against the
appeal judgment, emphasising
that it had wrongly dismissed his
request to be reinstated in his post in the company.
By a judgment of 17 March 2009, the Court of Cassation quashed the
court of appeal’s judgment and held
that the termination of an employment contract
was not wrongful
where it was justified
by the employer’s interests “in
the correct sense
of that term”, such
as the restoration
of harmonious collaboration between
employees or the
company’s smooth functioning.
The Court
of Cassation dismissed the
applicant’s appeal on points of law.
Complaints,
procedure and composition of the Court
Relying on
Article 8
(right to respect
for private and
family life) taken
together with Article 14 (prohibition of
discrimination), the applicant
alleged that there
had been a
violation of his
right to a private
life, the Court
of Cassation having
found his dismissal
– justified by
the fact that
he was HIVpositive – to be lawful. He also alleged
under Article 14 that his dismissal was discriminatory and that the ground
relied on by
the Court of
Cassation – the
need to preserve
the working environment
in the company – could not be taken as the basis for a difference in
treatment.
The
application was lodged with the European Court
of Human Rights on 2 December 2009.
Judgment
was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), President,
Elisabeth
Steiner (Austria),
Khanlar
Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska (“the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),
Julia
Laffranque (Estonia),
Linos-Alexandre
Sicilianos (Greece),
Erik
Møse (Norway),
and
also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.
Decision of the
Court
Article 8 taken together with
Article 14
According to
the Court’s established
case-law, discrimination meant
treating differently, without
an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar
or comparable situations.
The Court
considered that if the applicant’s
situation was compared
to that of
the other employees, it
was clear that
the applicant had been treated
less favourably than
another colleague would
have been, on account
of the fact
that he was
HIV-positive. In the
Court’s view, the problem
originated in the attitude
of rejection adopted
by the applicant’s
colleagues when faced
with his HIV-positive status.
The
court of appeal had held that the threat of disruption to the company was based
on scientifically unfounded
reactions and that
where an employee’s
illness did not
have an adverse
effect on the employment
relationship or the
smooth running of
the company, it
could not be
taken as an objective justification for termination of
the contract. t had explicitly recognised that the applicant’s HIV-positive status
had no effect
on his ability
to carry out
his work and
there was no
evidence that it would
lead to an
adverse impact on
his contract, justifying
its termination.
The company’s
very existence was not
threatened by the
pressure exerted by
the employees.
The employees’
prejudice could not be
used as a
pretext for ending
the contract of
an HIV-positive employee.
The need
to protect the employer’s
interests had to
be carefully balanced
against the need
to protect the interests
of the employee,
who was the
weaker party to
the contract, especially
where that employee was
HIV-positive.
In contrast,
the Court of
Cassation had not
weighed up the
competing interests in
such a detailed and in-depth manner as the court of
appeal.
While the
Court of Cassation
had also not
disputed the fact
that the applicant’s
illness had no adverse effect on the fulfilment of his
employment contract, it had nonetheless based its decision on clearly inaccurate
information, namely the
contagious nature of
the applicant’s illness.
In so
doing, the Court of
Cassation had ascribed
to the smooth
functioning of the
company the same
meaning which the employees
wished to give
it, and had
aligned the definition
of such smooth
functioning with the employees’ subjective and erroneous perception of
that issue.
The Court
considered that the
Court of Cassation
had not provided
an adequate explanation
of how the employer’s
interests outweighed those
of the applicant,
and had failed
to strike a
correct balance between the rights of the two parties.
The applicant
had been a
victim of discrimination on
account of his
health status, in
breach of Article 8 taken
together with Article 14.
Just
satisfaction (Article 41)
The court
held that Greece
was to pay
the applicant 6,339.18
euros (EUR) in
respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 8,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
The
judgment is available only in French.
-------------------------------------------------------
This press
release is a
document produced by
the Registry. It
does not bind
the Court. Decisions, judgments and
further information about
the Court can
be found on www.echr.coe.int.
To receive the
Court’s press releases,
please subscribe here:
www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow
us on Twitter @ECHRpress.
Press
contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel:
+33 3 90 21 42 08
Denis
Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
Tracey
Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Nina
Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)
Jean
Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)
The European
Court of Human
Rights was set
up in Strasbourg
by the Council
of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged
violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
