View Adopted: 2021.03.15
The author is a Spanish national. She was a soldier, who 8 years after her entry in the Spanish military, was given sick leave for clinical depression. She argued her medical condition was caused by harassment suffered at work However, the tests carried out by the State never attributed the author’s disorders to her work conditions. Therefore, she was not able to claim an indemnity or pension for her disability. She presented an administrative claim arguing that tests undergone after her leaving the military, certified that her disorders were caused by her working conditions. Followingly, she brought an administrative complaint, and it was found that there was not enough evidence to support that her disorders were caused by her role. Her request for appeal was found inadmissible.
The author claims that by not paying her pension and not motivating the judicial decisions, the State party violated her right to receiving a justification for a legal decision and to be considered equal before the law and not to be discriminated and the right to judicial guarantees under articles 14(1) and 26 of the Covenant.
The communication was brought to the European Court of Human Rights under which it was deemed inadmissible. As Spain has excluded jurisdiction of the Committee on matters under consideration by the ECtHR or other international bodies, the State party noted that the case should be deemed inadmissible. However, the Committee stated that since the ECtHR did not analyze the merits of the matter, the Committee could proceed with its examination of the case. Nonetheless, the Committee noted that the author did not demonstrate that the actions of the domestic judicial authorities were arbitrary or constituted a denial of justice. Consequently, the Committee concluded that the communication was inadmissible.
By Laura Cestaro