The affair springs from a complaint made by an Italian citizen against Goldman Sachs for unfair dismissal, discrimination on grounds of gender and nationality, workplace bullying, breach of statute, breach of contract, defamation, breach of human rights and illegal forced eviction through the use of physical violence.
Ms M.I. was unable to find any law firm willing to represent her in legal proceedings before the competent judicial authority in London. On 9 May 2007, she turned to the European Court of Human Rights, but was turned down on the grounds that her appeal did not comply with Articles 34 and 35 of the Strasbourg Convention. On 27 July 2010, she filed a complaint with the Commission (ref. CHAP201002528) and received a response, on 24 January 2011, in which the complaint was rejected on the grounds that it was an ‘employment grievance’ rather than a failure of justice on the part of a Member State. Her case was given very little consideration, considering that the matter involved not only issues of severance pay but also unfair and unjustified dismissal, negative references in the interested party’s file and the excessive power of a banking giant against a person who is strenuously defending her human and professional dignity.
Ms M.I.’s employment dispute is still awaiting a ruling from the courts in the United Kingdom and, since these judicial authorities have not yet taken any decision in the matter, she is unable to take her case to the subsequent judicial channels.
In view of the above, can the Commission say why there has been no scrutiny of the responsibilities of the UK judges, who have left this lady without the court decision to which any EU citizen should be entitled in view of the fundamental rights of the EU, published in the Official Journal of 18 December 2000? Does it now intend to shed light on their responsibility?