A judgment has entered into force in a civil case involving a rarely heard claim regarding a candidate’s right to receive a detailed explanation for being disqualified from a state-owned enterprise board member recruitment process due to reputation considerations. The Court held that the company is under no obligation to disclose such information and that the non-disclosure does not constitute moral harm to the candidate.
The claimant initiated legal proceedings after being disqualified from the final round of a recruitment process for a board member position. The grounds for disqualification were the failure to meet the “impeccable reputation” criteria. The candidate contended that the selection committee’s refusal to disclose detailed information on the specific facts regarding his reputation assessment was unlawful, infringed upon his honour and dignity, and violated his right to a fair process. The claimant sought a written apology and compensation for moral damages.
The defendant, represented by COBALT, successfully argued that the dispute falls within the realm of private law. The Court’s judgment reinforces several significant legal principles:
- Status of Private Law Subject: A state-owned enterprise, when organizing corporate governance and selecting board members, acts as a private law subject rather than a public authority. Consequently, the principles of the Law on State Administration Structure regarding the disclosure of information to third parties are not applicable to such processes.
- Position of Trust: A position on a board of directors is a position of trust. The nomination commission enjoys broad discretion in assessing a candidate’s reputation, and such an assessment is inherently subjective.
- Absence of Damage: The Court concluded that the non-disclosure of information cannot, in itself, constitute an infringement of honour and dignity, particularly when the information has not been disseminated publicly.
Significance for Corporate Governance
The Court concluded that the company acted lawfully and did not commit an actionable wrong under Article 1635 of the Civil Law by not disclosing the specific information sought by the candidate. Since the information regarding the candidate’s reputation assessment was not disclosed to third parties nor made public, there are no grounds to establish an infringement of the candidate’s honour and dignity.
This judgment precisely delineates public law obligations from the internal management processes of a commercial company, confirming that job candidates do not have an unqualified right of access to the internal assessments of official evaluation and nomination committees.
The defendant was represented by COBALT Managing Partner Lauris Liepa, and Senior Associate Gabriela Šantare.
Leading experts
