Конституционный суд
19 декабря 2017 года
№ KT20-11/2017
Facts
The Parliament inquired the Court to assess the constitutionality of the actions of Kęstutis Pūkas, a member of the Parliament, who was the subject of an impeachment case. The Court assessed the actions of the Member of the Parliament directed against persons holding and applying for the position of Assistant Secretary of the Parliament member.
Complaint
It was alleged that the Member of the Parliament may have humiliated the dignity of persons holding the position of the Assistant Secretary and those applying for the position, interfered with their private life and discriminated against them.
Court’s ruling
Harassment is a form of discrimination prohibited by the Constitution, and is understood as offensive, unacceptable or unwanted conduct that is intended to humiliate or degrade a person's dignity based on sex or other characteristics, and that creates an environment that is hostile to the person and intimidates, humiliates or offends the person. Harassment also infringes the physical or mental integrity of a person, disturbs the physical, mental and spiritual state of a person, restricts his/her physical activity, intellectual and creative freedom, and hence his/her free expression of personality, and may impair his/her relations with other persons. Harassment can have lasting or even permanent consequences, adversely affecting a person's private and social life. Harassment thus violates the human rights to protection of dignity, personal and private life and the right not to be discriminated against.
Sexual harassment, which is a form of harassment based on sex, is characterised by conduct of a sexual nature that is unwanted by the person being harassed.
The facts of harassment do not require that the person being harassed expressly and categorically object to the conduct, where it is clear that the conduct was unacceptable and objectively offensive to the person being harassed; in assessing whether certain conduct constitutes harassment, the perception of the person being harassed is taken into account (it is not necessary to identify the person who may have harassed the person). In view of the nature and consequences of harassment, it is not sufficient for the facts of harassment to be denied by the person who may have harassed, but all the other circumstances relevant for establishing those facts must be considered.
The conclusion stressed that the nature of harassment and its consequences inevitably lead to the humiliation of the reputation and authority of the Parliament, the representation of the people, and to the discrediting of the state authority, irrespective of whether such conduct of a Member of the Parliament is related to his/her parliamentary activities or to the exercise of his/her constitutional status of a member of the Parliament. Discriminatory and degrading conduct by a Member of the Parliament, which may amount to harassment on grounds of sex, including sexual harassment, shall constitute a serious violation of the Constitution and a violation of the oath of office of a Member of the Parliament.
According to the Court, the actions of the Member of the Parliament essentially fulfil the elements of harassment based on sex and sexual harassment. The Court found that the Member of the Parliament had committed a serious violation of the Constitution.