Key facts of the case:
In this case the applicant who is a female claimed that she was discriminated on gender grounds because her collegue who is male had a higher salary – around EUR 850 more than she earned, even though they were working in the same position. The applicant had missed the 2 year deadline of submitting a claim which is grounded in Labour Law, but she still asked for moral compensation. The first instance court rejected the claim fully, but the appeal court satisfied the claim and stated that defendant has to pay EUR 20 000 as moral compensation. The defendant submitted a cassation claim stating that in the history of labour disputes in Latvia the compensation was never higher than EUR 2 800.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
Whether the applicant has the right to receive moral compensation although the claim grounded in the Labour Law can be submitted within a two year period which she had missed?
Outcome of the case:
Supreme Court agreed with the defendant and stated that claimant had missed the deadline and cannot demand moral compensation.
The principle of the prohibition of discrimination (differential treatment) is enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The application of this principle is specified by the Directive 2006/54 / EC, which incorporates the European Union legislative framework for the implementation of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex in employment cases.
Diskriminācijas (atšķirīgas attieksmes) aizlieguma princips nostiprināts Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību hartas 21.pantā. Šī principa piemērošanu konkretizē Direktīva 2006/54/EK, kurā ietverts Eiropas Savienības normatīvais regulējums diskriminācijas uz dzimuma pamata aizlieguma īstenošanai nodarbinātības lietās.